Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Victor Warrender): reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Huddersfield Corporation) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement as to the position in Yugoslavia at the present time?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): No, Sir. I am afraid I could not undertake to do so.

Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend say what petitions from the Croatian minority have recently been received by the League of Nations?

Sir J. SIMON: What the hon. Gentleman asked me was to make a statement on Yugoslavia.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Government was one of the parties to the treaty that brought that new State into being at the end of the War, and that
the provisions of that treaty are being violated by the Serbians in that country, and is there a possibility at all of the British Government taking some steps to see that the provisions of the treaty are implemented?

Sir J. SIMON: The general political situation in a foreign country can hardly be described within the limits of a Parliamentary answer. I am myself fully aware of the importance and the difficulty of these matters, to which I have given a good deal of study, but I think the House will allow me to say that there are a good many other foreign problems with which I have to deal at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (LOAN).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to respond to the appeal made by the League of Nations Council to the Guarantor Powers of the 1923 loan to Austria that they should share in the international cooperation contemplated in the Protocol of 15th July, 1932?

Sir J. SIMON: The Protocol of 15th July, 1932, was signed by His Majesty's Government, and the hon. Member may rest assured that so far as we are concerned, the question of bringing the Protocol into force at an early date will not be lost sight of.

Oral Answers to Questions — SANTANDER—MEDITERRANEO COMPANY.

Mr. LEWIS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations to the Spanish Government on the subject of their failure to carry out their obligations to the Santander-Mediterraneo Company?

Sir J. SIMON: The position of the claim of the Santander-Mediterraneo Company has been under exhaustive and sympathetic examination by His Majesty's Government, in consultation with His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid. As a result of this examination, the Anglo-Spanish Construction Company, which has financed the project, has been asked to furnish further information on various essential points. Until
that information is received, the possibility of making representations to the Spanish Government cannot be decided.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (EASTERN AIR ROUTE).

Sir ALFRED BEIT: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in the conclusion of a treaty with Persia whereby the British air route to India may revert to the Persian coast of the Persian Gulf?

Sir J. SIMON: The reversion of the Eastern air route to the Persian coast of the Persian Gulf is not contemplated by His Majesty's Government, and there are therefore no negotiations on foot for the conclusion of a treaty with Persia to that end. The question of the air route has never formed part of the negotiations now being conducted with the Persian Government for a general treaty settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (TRANSPORT TAXATION).

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Government of Egypt regarding the grievances arising from the high fees demanded for permits to allow of the running of transport lorries; whether he is aware that lorry-owners were compelled to sign declarations waiving their capitulatory rights before such permits were issued; and what action has been taken in the matter by His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt?

Sir J. SIMON: Representations have already been made to the Egyptian Prime Minister in regard to the points mentioned in the first and second parts of my hon. Friend's question, and it has been made quite clear to His Excellency that the actions of the Egyptian authorities are, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, in certain respects illegal and a breach of the capitulatory rights of British subjects. I am awaiting the result of these representations.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Was this taxation put on without any consultation between the Egyptian Government and the British High Commissioner in Egypt?

Sir J. SIMON: I should require notice of that question, but I am quite certain that the fact, if it be a fact, has been duly noted in the representations that have been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (RIFLE RANGE).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with regard to the protests he has received against the expenditure of £5,000 on the purchase and lay-out of a new rifle range by the Government of Trinidad and the representations by the-taxpayers in this island made to his Department, he will delay giving sanction for this expenditure, in view of the unemployment and distress among the people of Trinidad, and discourage expenditure on such schemes?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Governor of Trinidad was authorised in February, 1931, to act upon a resolution of the Legislative Council to the effect that a new rifle range should be acquired in substitution for the existing range, which had become dangerous. The area to be acquired for the purpose was intended to accommodate also certain other public institutions. The question of suspending approval of the expenditure does not therefore arise.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the part of the question in which I ask whether he has received a protest from the people of Trinidad?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think some representations were made. I am certainly not justified in saying they were from the people of Trinidad, or from the Legislative Council. There were some representations from some quarter, I think, made to the Labour Government, and I think that the decision which I have announced to-day was quite a right one.

Lieut. -Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Would not this plan give more employment?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, it will.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what portion of this £5,000 is to be spent on labour and how much on the purchase of land?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could not possibly tell the House that. It is not only a question of a rifle range. I understood that this land is to provide for one or two other things, including a place of detention.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (WAR PHOTOGRAPHS).

Lord APSLEY: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to certain photographs, recently published, depicting battle scenes between aircraft, taken by an officer of the Royal Air Force who fell in aerial combat during the War; will he state whether these photographs were taken with the knowledge and consent of the said officer's squadron and flight commanders; and whether, seeing that the taking of such private photographs on active service is a breach of the King's Regulations, any disciplinary action has been taken?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, the Air Ministry has not to date been informed of the identity of the officers concerned, but I may say that in any event my Noble Friend does not consider any disciplinary action would be called for in the case of a breach or breaches of the regulations of this character committed some 15 years ago.

Lord APSLEY: Does my hon. Friend think that the photographs are genuine?

Sir P. SASSOON: I would not like to say that. We do not know the identity of the officer.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Have any one of the Service charities received their usual provision after the photographs were taken?

Sir P. SASSOON: I require notice of that question.

Lord APSLEY: Is it not a fact that there were only two squadrons in which these photographs could have been taken? It should not be difficult therefore, to find out.

Sir P. SASSOON: We have not been able to find out yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION (AERODROME FACILITIES, LONDON).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the delays to travellers by air to and from London caused by the lack of central aerodrome facilities; whether any proposals for overcoming such delays are brought to his notice; and whether he will consider taking steps to assist the establishment of an air port in central London?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am aware that travellers by air incur some degree of delay owing to the fact that there is no air port in central London. Various suggestions for the provision of such an air port have been put forward, but the financial, technical and other difficulties involved have so far proved insurmountable. My Noble Friend will, however, continue to give careful consideration to this problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR INSURANCE.

Mr. PIKE: 19.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the protection afforded to the public by compulsory insurance is avoided when the death of the person causing the injury takes place prior to an ascertainment of damages, with the result that the insurance company concerned is released from all responsibility; and if he will take steps to amend the law in this respect?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): As I have explained on previous occasions the legal proposition that a right of personal action ceases on the death of the person against whom it may be brought is of wide application and, although the point was considered when the Road Traffic Bill was before the House two years ago, Parliament decided that it would not be right to depart from this general principle in the particular case of motor injuries.

Mr. PIKE: In view of the compulsory nature of motor insurance, does not the Minister consider that the time has arrived when a change should be made in the law?

Mr. PYBUS: No, Sir. I suggest that it is too recent since the passing of the Road Traffic Act.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that many grave injustices have occurred as a result of this system, and does he not think that it ought to be reconsidered in the light of the last two years' experience?

Mr. PYBUS: But in the case of a motor accident the principal witness for the defence is as a rule dead.

Mr. PIKE: Should not compulsory insurance be coupled with compulsory responsibility on the part of the insurance company, to meet their responsibility in respect of the insured person?

Mr. PYBUS: Parliament considered that point very carefully when the Bill was passing through the House, and decided against it.

Mr. PIKE: Will the Government consider the matter again?

Mr. PIKE: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that numerous cases arise in connection with the non-observance of conditions in policies of assurance relating to motor vehicles which result in the vehicle being uninsured at the time of an accident, and so rendering the insurance company free of liability; and if he will take steps to ensure to relatives of accident victims means of obtaining payment of damages?

Mr. PYBUS: Much as I sympathise with the victims in these cases, I cannot see any practicable form of legislation that would ensure in all cases the payment of damages to third parties when the motorist renders himself uninsured owing to the non-observance of conditions contained in his policy. Under Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a motorist is liable to heavy penalties if he uses a motor vehicle in respect of which no valid policy of insurance or other form of security is in force.

ROAD SERVICE LICENCES (APPEALS).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of appeals made to him against the decision of the traffic commissioners during the longest period for which figures are available, together with the number of appeals that were successful?

Mr. PYBUS: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon.
Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Since the Act came into operation two years ago the number of appeals for decision, relating to applications for road service licences, has been 2,253, of which 400 are suspended pending decisions of the High Court. A very large number of these appeals relate only to conditions attaching to licences. The figures include appeals against grants as well as appeals against refusals of licences. My hon. Friend will also appreciate that many of the individual cases in this tabulation involve the same point. Decisions have been reached in 1,151 cases, which involve 194 orders on the traffic commissioners, reversing or modifying their decisions in 381 cases, and postponing for one month the operation of the decision in 62 cases. The number of appeals against refusals of public service vehicle licences, or certificate of fitness, which I have had to decide, is six; in no case have I made an order. My hon. Friend will recall that appeals against the commissioners' refusal of drivers' and conductors' licences fall to be made to the Courts, and not to me.

ROAD AND RAIL INQUIRY (REPORT).

Mr. KIMBALL: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that his delay in giving a decision on the Salter Report is causing delay in the placing of contracts already tendered for and is resulting in unemployment in certain brandies of the engineering industry; and whether he will expedite the announcement of his decision on this matter?

Mr. PYBUS: Representations in this sense have already been made to me and I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no avoidable delay in reaching a decision. He will realise however that the rates of licence duties are a budget matter on which it is not possible to anticipate the budget decision.

Mr. KIMBALL: May we hope for an early decision, in view of the fact that the report was presented in August and that it is now the last day of November?

Mr. PYBUS: I have said on many occasions in this House that there would
be no avoidable delay. We are doing everything we can to urge the matter forward.

Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he gave the same reply to practically the same question three weeks ago; and does he not consider that the time for action has arrived?

Mr. PYBUS: Action is at present going on.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. LEWIS: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state, to the latest convenient date, how the fatal road accidents in this country during the present year compare as a percentage of population with such accidents in France and Germany, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My right hon. Friend regrets that he has not the materials on which to base such a comparison.

WATERLOO BRIDGE.

Mr. McENTEE: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can now make any further statement on the proposal to rebuild Waterloo Bridge?

Mr. PYBUS: A deputation was received on the 25th November by the Lord President of the Council from representatives of the London County Council, when they were informed that the various points raised by them would receive the early consideration of the Government. I am not in a position at present to add to that reply.

Mr. McENTEE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are making a financial contribution, and, if so, what proportion will it bear to the cost of the bridge?

Mr. PYBUS: I said that a deputation has been received by the Lord President of the Council, and I am not in a position to give any further information at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (ERROL).

Lord SCONE: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to
make a statement regarding the installation of electricity into the village of Errol?

Mr. PYBUS: I am unable at present to add to the answer given to the Noble Lord on 26th October.

Lord SCONE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter of great urgency to the community concerned; and will he use his best efforts to effect a settlement in the very near future?

Mr. PYBUS: Yes, Sir. I have written to the company to that effect.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the money voted each year since 1925 for land settlement purposes in the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland was used in the same year for such purposes?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I am sending a tabular statement to the hon. Member containing particulars of the sums voted annually into the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund for land settlement purposes since 1926, and the net expenditure from that fund on the same object in the corresponding years. Of a total sum of £907,000 voted from 1925 to 1931 inclusive, £709,000 have been spent. The balance of £198,000 is being held in the fund against commitments which have not yet matured.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1929.

Mr. MACLEAN: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total sum paid annually in Scotland to factory owners and others under the de-rating provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929?

Sir G. COLLINS: No payments other than grants to local authorities are made on account of de-rating under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, but the total rate-reduction due to the de-rating provisions of the Act is, on the basis of the standard year (1928–9), approximately 23,250,000.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what credits were granted in the 12 months to the last
convenient date under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1928?

Sir G. COLLINS: The Agricultural Securities Corporation contemplated in Part I of the Act has not yet started operations. As I stated in my reply yesterday to a, question by the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), the board of directors has been constituted, and I hope that the further stages in the formation of the corporation will be carried through at an early date.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does that give any indication as to when this matter is going to be commenced?

Sir G. COLLINS: It will commence at a very early date, but I cannot say exactly when the Agricultural Credits Corporation will start operations.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay before this corporation the necessity for getting into operation as quickly as possible?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have already done so during the last month.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: 25.
asked the Postmaster-General what amount of capital expenditure was authorised to his Department by the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1931; and what amount was engaged in for the financial year ended 31st Mazda, 1932, and for the six months ended 30th September, 1932?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The amount authorised by the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1931, was £32,000,000. The capital expenditure in the financial year ended 31st March, 1932, was £9,582,740. The approximate capital expenditure for the six months April-September, 1932, is £4,030,000.

AUTOMATIC STAMP MACHINES.

Mr. GRUNDY (for Mr. PRICE): 26.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of automatic stamp machines in use in Great Britain; and if there are any districts of over 20,000 popu-
lation that have not the facilities afforded by these machines??

Sir E. BENNETT: Machines have been installed on about 5,000 sites, mostly at Post Offices. I think it is unlikely that many districts with as many as 20,000 inhabitants are without machines, but if the hon. Member has any particular district in mind, I will make inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (RAILWAY ORDERS).

Mr. A. RAMSAY: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that large quantities of railway material are from time to time ordered by the Indian State railways from the Continent of Europe, particularly from the Hungarian State railway workshops which are not subject to ordinary trading conditions; and what steps he proposes to take to secure a preference for British interests in this matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Orders for stores required for the Indian State Railways have been placed on the Continent from time to time but the proportion of orders so placed has been by no means large. The Royal Hungarian State Works have obtained some of these orders where their tenders were most advantageous to India. In accordance with the practice which has frequently been explained 'in the House I am not in a position to take any steps in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. RAMSAY: Is the House to assume from that reply that the India Office do not consider that they have any responsibility whatever for advancing British trade interests in India?

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Gentleman must not make that assumption.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Miss CAZALET: 30.
asked the Minister of Health when he intends to introduce legislation with regard to rent restriction?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I am giving notice to-day of intention to introduce a, Bill to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman in framing the Bill give consideration to the question of the exaction of "key-money" by landlords in the case of decontrolled houses?

Sir H. YOUNG: I cannot anticipate the contents of the Bill, which will be circulated to the House on Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT TO CHINA AND JAPAN).

Mr. HICKS: 33 and 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will publish for October, 1932, by categories, the declared value of arms and munitions and naval and military stores, not including sporting arms and munitions, of British manufacture licensed by him for export to China, and Japan;
(2) if he will publish a statement giving particulars of the arms and munitions and naval and military stores, not including sporting arms and munitions, in respect of which he has issued licences to export to Japan and China during October, 1932?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Particulars of values will not be included as it is not the practice to make public information on the subject.

Following is the statement:


Statement showing material covered by export licences issued for China and Japan during October, 1932.


China.
Japan.


39,000 .5/565 machine-gun cartridges.
235,000 13.2 mm. machine-gun cartridges.


19 /" machine-gun locks.
290 7.7 mm. machine-guns with spare parts.

IMPORTED ARTICLES (MARKING).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been made for the marking of imported articles from 1st January, 1932, to date; how many of the applications have been granted; how
many have been refused; and how many are still awaiting decision?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Fifteen applications have been received by the Board of Trade since 1st January, 1932. Twelve of these applications have been referred to the standing committee appointed by the Board and the remainder are still under consideration. The committee have held inquiries into six of these applications. In pursuance of the committee's reports a Marking Order has been made in one case and the draft of another Marking Order has been laid on the Table of the House. The other four cases are still awaiting decision. These figures are exclusive of three applications received by the Ministry of Agriculture in respect of certain agricultural and horticultural products.

Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman think, in view of the imposition of duties against foreign goods, that all this marking of imported articles is of any value?

Dr. BURGIN: I think it has a very definite value and so do the trades concerned, having regard to these applications.

RUSSIA.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES (for Dr. SALTER): 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics has responded to the invitation to discuss the situation created by the denunciation of the temporary commercial agreement with the United Kingdom; and what steps he is taking to secure such discussion at the earliest possible moment?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. I have as yet received no reply from the Soviet Government. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member will recall that the Prime Minister stated in this House on the 17th November, that His Majesty's Government are prepared at any time to go forward when they receive a reply from Russia.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (HYDROGENATION).

Mr. A. RAMSAY: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will
state the policy of the Government in regard to the production of oil from coal by means of the process of hydrogenation?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward).

Mr. RAMSAY: Will my hon. Friend lay papers before the House giving the report of the Fuel Research Board on this matter, or, alternatively, will he rereive a deputation of Members of the House and disclose to them the facts in possession of the Department?

Mr. BROWN: I can give no pledge of that kind. I am quite willing to receive a deputation at any time of Members of the House.

Mr. RAMSAY: As I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to waste the time of the House, may I ask what is the good of a deputation going to him if he does not disclose to them the facts in his possession?

Mr. BROWN: There may be many considerations, other than those in the mind of my hon. Friend which would make a deputation of very great value.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Have the Government come to a definite decision upon this matter?

Mr. BROWN: With regard to that question, I can add nothing to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asked:
Have the Government any policy at all on the matter? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1932, Col. 632, Vol. 272.]
and my right hon. Friend "indicated assent."

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSK RATS (SHROPSHIRE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture at what date permission was given to import musk rats for the purpose of setting up the musquash farm at Shrawardine Pool, in Shropshire; whether any precautions
against escape were laid down in that connection; and whether any action is to be taken against the owner for permitting musk rats to escape from the farm?

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. The musk rats in question were brought into this country in October, 1929, there being at that time no restrictions whatever on the importation and keeping of musk rats in Great Britain. Such restrictions only came into operation on the 1st May, 1932, following the making of an Order and Regulations under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932. In these circumstances the second part of the question does not arise. The reply to the final paragraph is in the negative as no offence had been committed under the Act for which proceedings could be taken.

WILLIAMS: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the estimated number of musk rats in the County of Salop, over 1,000,000; and what action is being taken to deal with this menace to the rivers and reservoirs in England and Wales?

Sir G. BOWYER: Various unofficial estimates of the number of musk rats at large in Shropshire have been made but they are purely conjectural. As regards remedial or preventive action, the Ministry has 27 trappers at work under expert supervision in the infested area. Catchment Boards and canal owners throughout the country have been circularised and asked to report any signs of infestation, and an explanatory pamphlet has been prepared and widely circulated.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the estimate of 1,000,000 correct?

Mr. WILLIAMS: While thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that very comprehensive reply, may I ask him to assure farmers and others in various parts of Shropshire that the Department are doing their best to eliminate this danger?

Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a very large stock of traps for catching these rats, in Wednesfield, where they are nearly all made?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

PIMLICO CLOTHING FACTORY.

Mr. LAWSON: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether full-dress uniforms are still being made at the Pimlico factory; and whether it has been decided to continue to produce such uniforms at Pimlico?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the clothing factory at Pimlico will be evacuated by September, 1933.

CHEMICAL WARFARE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that chemicals supplied to the Chemical Defence Department by certain manufacturers for testing respirators can be equally well used for offensive purposes; and whether it is the policy of the War Department to allow these manufacturers to acquire the necessary plant and experience so that they may be prepared for offence if requested?

Mr. COOPER: Certain chemicals used for the testing of respirators could also be used illegally for offensive purposes, but it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to use any chemicals for offensive purposes.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question—whether the Government are enabling manufacturers to acquire the necessary plant and experience so that they may be prepared for offence, if requested?

Mr. COOPER: The Government are not enabling manufacturers to acquire any particular plant, nor do the Government prevent manufacturers from acquiring any plant which they wish to acquire.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If it has been found necessary to obtain such chemicals, why should not the Government be responsible for their manufacture, so that there should be no incentive to produce for sale?

Mr. COOPER: As I have already said, the Government are only responsible for their manufacture with a view to defensive operations.

Mr. PIKE: Will the Government hold themselves responsible for some of the poison gas produced from the Opposition benches?

Mr. HICKS: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will give details of the steps being taken to provide for the protection of the civil population against chemical warfare; and whether he will assure the House that the work being done at Porton and Sutton Oak has no object in view other than defence?

Mr. COOPER: As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in the course of Debate on 10th November, the whole question of the protection of the civil population against attack from the air is under consideration by His Majesty's Government. Substantial progress has been made, but the stage has not yet been reached at which any detailed statement of the measures which are being taken with this object could usefully be made. As regards the last part of the question, the work at Sutton Oak and Porton has no object in view other than defence.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN (TREATMENT ALLOWANCES).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 42.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many disabled men are receiving medical or hospital treatment at the present time; and, of this number, how many are in receipt of treatment allowances?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): At the end of October there were 4,600 men in hospital or in receipt of some other form of medical or surgical treatment from the Ministry, apart from those in mental hospitals. I have not the precise information asked for in the last part of the question, but certainly the great majority of these men would be receiving allowances.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 43.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that in some cases disabled men needing treatment for their war disabilities hesitate to undergo such treatment because they are concerned as to how their families and dependants will live during their course of treatment; and will he take steps to ensure that in all cases
where treatment is certified as necessary by the Ministry allowances are issued to the pensioner's family?

Mr. SALT: 44.
asked the Minister of Pensions what arrangements are made for the support of the families of disabled men during the time the pensioners are receiving treatment for their war disabilities?

Mr. POTTER: 46.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that in many cases disabled men receiving treatment for their war disabilities have to apply to charitable funds for the maintenance of their wives and families; and will he take steps to see that adequate allowances are issued by the Government in cases of this description?

Mr. LIDDALL: 47.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists regarding the interpretation of the Treatment Allowances Regulations; and will he take steps to ensure that in all cases where a pensioner is ordered treatment for his war disability full allowances are issued in view of the fact that the man is 100 per cent. disabled during the period of treatment?

Captain STRICKLAND: 48.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, having regard to the fact that unemployed pensioners who are ordered a course of treatment are thereby taken off the labour market and are prevented from obtaining any employment which might become available during that period, he will take steps to see that in such cases full treatment allowances are issued for the pensioner and his family?

Mr. MORGAN: 49.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that treatment allowances have been refused to disabled men receiving treatment for their war disabilities on the ground that the pensioners are not normally workers; and will he take steps to ensure that disabled men who have been unable to obtain employment because of their disablement are not penalised thereby?

Major TRYON: Hon. Members are, I fear, under some misapprehension as to the nature of the allowances referred to. These allowances are provided by the Royal Warrants to meet the circumstances of cases in which the patient suffers loss of earnings in consequence of his treatment by having to give up
temporarily a remunerative occupation on which he was dependent for the support of himself and his family. They thus represent compensation for loss of the wages or profits, if any, which would otherwise be received, and while consideration is always given to cases where a man is no more than temporarily unemployed at the date of commencement of the treatment, I should have no authority to adopt the suggestion that the special allowances should automatically be given in every case of hospital treatment, regardless of the facts of the case. I may add that there has been no change in the practice of the Ministry which has been maintained under successive Governments in regard to these allowances. I would remind hon. Members that during any period of incapacity for work, whether owing to war service disability or otherwise, disabled men normally receive sickness or disablement benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts in addition to their pensions.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether there has been any change in the practice of recent Governments?

Major TRYON: No, Sir. There has been no change in the practice of successive Governments. Indeed, my predecessor, Mr. Roberts, very rightly gave an answer as follows:
The special allowances referred to are payable only where the patient has incurred loss by having to give up a remunerative occupation in gonsequence of the treatment.
That was stated by Mr. Roberts after he had been nearly a year at the Ministry.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not now reconsider this matter, first of all from the point of view that health insurance in a large number of cases will stop, owing to the operation of the new Act? Secondly, is he aware that where formerly there would have been some test about a man being a long time out of work, now, owing to the depression and the almost hopelessness of large numbers getting a job, the test does not apply in the way that Parliament originally meant it, and will he not now therefore reconsider the whole question, in view of the fact that these men are long
spells out of work through no fault of their own?

Major TRYON: I have very carefully considered this matter in the light of representations made by the British Legion, but I am not prepared to make any change in what has been done for many years by successive Governments. During hospital treatment the pensioner is maintained free at the cost of the Ministry. His pension goes to the benefit of the family, and in those cases where he is eligible, he also gets health benefit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in certain cases where men are out of work their wives work, and when a man is in hospital the woman has to leave her work, and as there is a tremendous loss there, will he not reconsider this matter?

Major TRYON: No, Sir. In cases like that the family would be relieved of the cost of the patient's maintenance.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL AIR FORCE (FRENCH PROPOSAL).

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the questions involved by the development of an international air force, as proposed by the French Government, are being considered by the appropriate body in this country at the present time?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): This and all connected questions are being considered by His Majesty's Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIVISECTION.

Mr. GROVES: 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that the 745 visits paid to places registered for vivisection by the two inspectors under the Act, 39 and 40 Vic., c. 77, during the year 1931 was a sufficient proportion of visits in relation to the 613,562 experiments performed during that year on living animals to ensure that the protection that the Act purports to give is in fact given?

Mr. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that the present
system of inspection is not sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act.

Mr. GROVES: Does the hon. Gentleman himself believe that this proportion of visits is satisfactory?

Mr. STANLEY: I think the basis of ratio which the hon. Gentleman has selected really proves nothing. The number of experiments are, of course, counted by each particular time any operation is performed, and in a single case of inoculation, for instance, every time an inoculation is performed that would appear as an experiment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOTE CLUBS.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 55.
asked the Home Secretary how many new tote clubs have been started during the past month; whether consideration has been given to the question of the legality of totalisators on such premises and to the fact that ordinary licensees may be charged as much as £600 per annum by the Excise Department for a quasi monopoly, but are now being competed with in the sale of exciseable liquors by these clubs, which only pay a licence of five shillings?

Mr. STANLEY: I regret the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available; with regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 24th instant to my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell) and Dudley (Mr. Joel); with regard to the point raised in the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question by the hon. Member for Islington South (Mr. Howard) on the 24th of this month. I may perhaps point out that, in addition to the annual fee of 5s. paid to the registration authority, clubs in which intoxicants are supplied pay an excise duty of threepence in the pound on their purchases of intoxicants.

Sir C. RAWSON: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that these tote clubs have the advantage of having gambling on their premises, whereas the ordinary licensee is not allowed to indulge in such practices?

Commander MARSDEN: Does my hon. Friend realise that all the best tote clubs have a very large notice up saying: "No betting permitted"?

Oral Answers to Questions — VOTING FACILITIES (BLIND PERSONS).

Captain FRASER: 56.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that many blind persons object to the procedure under which they have to disclose to the presiding officer and the agents of the candidates the name or names of the candidate or candidates for whom they are voting at elections; and if he would view with sympathy a change in the law which would give blind persons, as an alternative, the opportunity of entrusting the marking of their ballot papers to a wife or friend who may accompany them to the polling booth?

Mr. STANLEY: If a private Member's Bill to effect the proposed change were generally acceptable to all political parties, the Government would give it sympathetic consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost to the Exchequer in subsidy and rebate of taxation up to the latest date for which figures are available of the assistance given to the beet-sugar industry?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The total cost of the beet-sugar subsidy from 1924 to the 31st March, 1932 was £24,335,382, but this figure includes advances amounting to £183,238 made under the British Sugar Industry (Assistance) Act, 1931, which are contingently repayable. The difference between the amount of duty paid in respect of home-grown beet-sugar and the amount which would have been payable on a similar quantity of imported sugar of foreign origin from 1915 to 31st March, 1932, is approximately £9,546,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (PROPAGANDA).

Mr. DORAN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is
aware that the Moscow trades union radio station still continues to broadcast anti-British propaganda on four nights a week; what steps he proposes to take in order to see that this breach of agreement does not continue; and whether he is aware that some of these transmissions are in code for the benefit of their agents in this country?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State to my Noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) on the 14th of September, 1931. I have been in communication with other Departments concerned, and think it would be expedient to give no further answer at present.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: How long will the Government tolerate these frequent beaches of agreement?

Sir J. SIMON: I can only repeat that it would be expedient to give no further answer at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

ROYAL COMMISSION (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service which have been definitely rejected by the Treasury on the ground of expense?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The recommendations of the Royal Commission have been referred to negotiating bodies of official and staff representatives. Of these, the Temporary Staffs Committee has issued a report on which action has been taken by the. Government, and I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the Report and relevant Treasury Circular.

WOMEN (PROMOTION).

Sir A. BEIT: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the representations made by the National Association of Women Civil Servants, namely, that the policy of open recruitment to the clerical and executive grades considerably diminishes the prospects of the lower grades of filling vacancies in their grades; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend presumably refers to a communication from this Association dated the 22nd November. The question of appointments to the clerical class had already been raised by the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, and is still under discussion thereon.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SUBMARINE M.2 (SALVAGE OPERATIONS).

Mr. DORAN: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can explain the reasons for the continued delay in the salvage operations on the Submarine M.2?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The attempt to raise M.2 at the end of September was considered sufficiently promising to justify further operations with a view to another attempt being made as soon as possible. These operations are proceeding. Work has been slow owing to adverse weather conditions, which are to be expected at this time of year, only about one-third of the period, October-November, having been suitable for any operations to be undertaken.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: What has been the cost of these operations up to date?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The last time I inquired the cost was about £12,000. For that sum we have in hand a very valuable air compressor and a great deal of valuable experience that we had not before.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the future policy of the Board of Admiralty in the matter of salving this vessel?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: As preparations are so far advanced, it is proposed to make a last attempt to raise the wreck. Should it fail, or should bad weather spoil the preparations already made, salvage will be abandoned. Hon. Members will realise that this will be a keen disappointment to those engaged on the work, which has been both arduous and difficult and has been carried out with great zeal by those concerned.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. T. GRIFFITHS): 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the present condition of the Singapore Base; and how much of the construction work has been completed?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): The work at present being proceeded with is that recommended by the Imperial Conference, 1930, as set out in Section IX of Command Paper 3717 and is confined to the continuation of a contract for the provision of a dock, wharf wall and ancillary constructional work. The contract period is seven years and although no section has yet been completed progress on this work is in keeping with the contract conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (RAIDS).

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. T. GRIFFITHS): 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to give the House any information as to the action to deal with slave raiders from Abyssinia into Kenya?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the reply is a somewhat long one I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

On the 1st November the Governor of Kenya reported by telegraph that he had learnt of two attacks on British subjects by Ethiopian tribesmen. The first appears to have taken place about the 30th September. According to the reports of survivors 94 British subjects of the Gabbra tribe, including women and children, had been murdered by Gelubba tribesmen armed with rifles. The Gabbra who carried only spears were on a peaceful mission to Lokaria's village, situated to the east of Lake Rudolf on the Kenya-Ethiopia border. About 7,000 head of stock were stolen. The first attack was followed by a raid by Gelubba riflemen 70 miles into Kenya territory, which resulted on the 19th October in 26 persons, presumed to be Gabbra, and believed to include women and children, being murdered near Longendoti and much stock being taken. Troops were despatched by the Kenya Government to the scene, and have subsequently been reinforced, as a measure of precaution.

The news was simultaneously telegraphed to His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa who obtained a personal audience of the Emperor of Ethiopia. The Emperor undertook to send immediate orders to the provincial authorities to deal with the raiders. His Majesty's Government will do all in their power to secure the payment of adequate compensation and the adoption of effective measures to prevent a recurrence of these outrages. Negotiations with the Ethiopian Government are still proceeding. I may add that I have no evidence that the attacks had for their object the taking of slaves.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (TANGA-DAR-ESSALAAM ROAD).

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. T. GRIFFITHS): 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Tanga-Dar-es-Salaam Road in Tanganyika, advocated by the Hilton Young Commission, has been completed in a condition suitable for heavy motor traffic?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This road was opened for traffic in August, 1930. I have had no report as to its actual condition but I understand that it is used by lorries to some extent.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

SMALL-PDX (LEICESTER).

Mr. GROVES: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can furnish a Return showing the cases of small-pox notified in Leicester for each of the years 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931, at the following ages: 0 to 4, 5 to 9, and 10 to 14 years?

Sir H. YOUNG: I will send the hon. Member the figures for which he asks.

CANCER.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN (for Mr. THORNE): 29.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state what recent experiments have been made in ascertaining the cause of cancer; whether his Department has any knowledge of recent experiments dealing with blood changes affecting dead tissue, especially in the female; and what steps are being taken to give financial aid to British research workers so that they may be adequately equipped for the endeavour to find the cure for cancer?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am sending the hon. Member a statement on the subject raised in his question.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman convinced that the time has come for a special inquiry into the incidence of cancer, especially in view of the necessity of ascertaining the effect of industrial processes on cancer?

Sir H. YOUNG: The matter requires careful consideration, and perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put the question down.

SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).

Mr. GRUNDY (for Mr. PRICE): 31.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons whose properties have been acquired by local authorities during the last three years upon payment of site value only under insanitary area schemes; and the number 'of persons whose houses were not in an insanitary condition but as leaseholders received no compensation?

Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As to the second part, the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension: compensation is payable under the Housing Acts to leaseholders in respect of houses which are not insanitary, or otherwise dangerous or injurious to health, but are required to be demolished in connection with proposals for the clearance of insanitary areas.

Mr. PIKE: In reference to the first part of the question, will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the importance of this matter, attempt to secure the necessary statistics so that he will be able to give full details to the House, as many hundreds of people can ill-afford to be subjected to this treatment and are suffering as a consequence?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am afraid that I cannot give that undertaking, but, if the hon. Member will consider the processes that would be necessary to obtain this information, I think that he will be convinced that they would be very laborious and would not yield any very accurate results.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on the negotiations with reference to the question of the American debt?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The reply to the Note of the United States Government of the 23rd of this month has now been completed and will be transmitted to Washington forthwith. The reply will be published in the course of a day or two.

Brevet-Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement in the "Daily Herald" stating that £3,000,000 of bar gold was being shipped, and is there any truth in that report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the statement in question, and there is no foundation for it whatever.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Matrimonial Causes.
3.30 p.m.
I apologise to the House for taking this course, which has not been taken previously in this Parliament by a private Member, but I take it for a special reason which I will explain. This is a modest Bill, directed to one of the recommendations made by a Royal Commission 20 years ago. It seeks to make two changes in the law, one a substantial, and the second a minor and consequential change. The substantial change is to add to the statutory grounds of divorce the ground that the respondent is incurably insane, and has been a certified lunatic continuously for a period of not less than five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The minor change is a consequential one which enlarges the present legal provision withholding from a petitioner the relief granted if the condition of mind is caused by his or her neglect or bad conduct.
Complaint is being made, I observe, that the House is being asked to deal
with this Bill instead of a Bill on the general lines of the recommendations of the Royal Commission 20 years ago. The House is aware that after a very careful and long inquiry into matrimonial grievances the Royal Commission made recommendations that the law of divorce should be expanded to contain a number of grounds. My view, and I think it is a view which will commend itself to the House, is that a Bill of that character, making drastic and far-reaching changes in the law should be undertaken only by the Government itself. It is no part of the duty of a private Member to assume such a responsibility, and I am bound to say that I think persons outside this House are incurring a grave responsibility by exciting hopes in the minds of aggrieved citizens that the present Administration is contemplating any such large change in the law. As far as I know there is no warrant for such a view, and I am extremely sorry that persons of position should hold out what I believe to be a false expectation.
I have taken this course to-day with the greatest possible respect—and with apologies to my friend the hon. Baronet the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle), who is about to open a very important Debate—because I felt I could not take the responsibility of exciting hopes outside this House that relief of this character was in expectation unless I could have behind me the opinion of this House as recorded on its reception of this Bill. Why I selected this particular cause is that the Royal Commission paid direct attention to this aspect of matrimonial relief, and put on record these words, of which I would venture to remind the House:
Indeed, incurable insanity is more effective in destroying the marriage relationship than any other causes which we have recommended as grounds for divorce.
A very eminent medical man who gave evidence before the Commission used these words, with which I am not in full agreement, in describing the social difficulty created by insanity. Dr. Robert Jones said:
The marriage contract is ended by death, and should similarly and for the same reason be ended by confirmed insanity, which is social and domestic extinction.
A practical difficulty which the House will desire to face in considering this matter
is whether we can be satisfied that this condition of incurable insanity can be relied on. As to that the Royal Commission heard a good deal of evidence, and the limit of five years is founded upon their recommendations. They say:
It was suggested that it may be difficult to determine the fact that a patient is absolutely incurable and that conflicting medical evidence may leave the question unsettled. The evidence clearly shows that if a time limit be given the difficulty becomes almost negligible, and there appears to be no reason to suppose that if the ground is confined to lunacy pronounced incurable after five years continuous confinement any real difficulty would be felt.
In this Bill the limit of five years recommended by the Commission has been adopted, but if the House in its wisdom thinks that a longer period should be inserted it is open to the House to do it, because the title of the Bill has been so framed that any such change as the House may desire to make in the Measure can be undertaken.
I would say in conclusion, with the very greatest possible respect, that I am not speaking here for myself. I am speaking here for hundreds of men and women among all classes in this country who have suffered, frequently in silence, from this terrible tragedy of an insane spouse. This Bill does not put upon any such person the duty of proceeding to a divorce, it leaves it optional; but if it is desired, after a long and continuous and hopeless experience of insanity, to sever the marriage tie, why should not that end be effected? I venture to say that opinion outside this House is overwhelmingly in favour of this course. I appreciate, although I do not share, the conscientious objection which is taken to this Bill. There are those who think that in no circumstances should the law permit the severance of the marriage tie, but it has long been the law of this land that in circumstances determined by Parliament the courts shall be authorised to do so. Therefore it is much too late in the day to urge that ground. However, everybody is entitled to speak for himself, and I confess that I cannot meet that ground of objection. I put this Bill forward on this simple ground. Here is an admitted and terrible grievance which afflicts large numbers of people. It is a grievance which appeals to the general sense of the community. In the interests of domestic life the relief pro-
vided for in this Bill should be speedy. I ask the House, by their reception of the Measure this afternoon, to send to many persons outside the House that word of encouragement for which they are waiting.

3. 40p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I oppose this Bill simply and solely because I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not made out his case in regard to those who are incurably insane. How is he able to apply the term "incurably insane" to any particular person? I am one of those who are perhaps old-fashioned and orthodox. I believe that the consummation of marriage ought to be for life, although it is rather a new fashion to disregard the old injunction
what therefore God bath joined together let no man put asunder.
What are the complexities of married life when one person is bound to an insane partner in comparison with those that would arise if a man who was cured of insanity came back and found that his wife had already been married? Think of the complexities that would arise in the family life of the nation. I am convinced that, for the purity of the household and for the benefit of all that is good and sane in the body politic, it is most essential that the family tie should be strictly preserved.
I agree that it is a misfortune if one partner to a marriage should be stricken down, but the only place in the world where sympathy is to be found is in the home. The joining together as man and wife ought to be the most sacred tie between men and women. It is proposed that if one is stricken down through no fault of his own and becomes insane, you should be able to apply to the court to get redress and to get freedom, although you have said that you have bound yourselves together for life as man and wife. That appears to be making a laughing stock of marriage; the most vital tie that hinds men and women together to-day is being flouted. I am convinced, from the point of view of marriage, that for this House to agree to this Motion would be a most serious step.
The hon. and learned Member was most correct when he said that he was not speaking for himself. It appears to me that the National Government have
a life of about five years before it. Five years according to the ordinary run—[An HON. MEMBER: No."]—well, four years. That is one year in advance. The Bill would establish as a statutory ground for divorce that the respondent had been incurably insane for five years before the petition. When I remember that the hon. and learned Member was sitting on these benches and that he has now gone over to the National Government, and that there is a long period of practically five years to run, I would like to know whether that is considered to be a form

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Holford Knight, Miss Pickford, Mr. Groves, Mr. Denman, Mr. Mabane, Miss Rathbone, and Mr. Pike.

of insanity that might be brought within the terms of the Bill. That might be a reductio ad absurdum, but I am fully convinced that any hon. Member who values home life and Who values the best interests of this nation, will give no support to the Motion but will go into the Lobby to vote against it.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Matrimonial Causes.

The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 42.

Division No. 5.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Groves, Thomas E.
North, Captain Edward T.


Astbury, Lieut.-Con. Frederick Wolfe
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nunn, William


Banfield, John William
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Harbord, Arthur
Peat, Charles U.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Harris, Sir Percy
Petherick, M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Hornby, Frank
Pike, Cecil F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rea, Walter Russell


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
John, William
Reld, William Allan (Derby)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Kimball, Lawrence
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Clayton Dr. George C.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cook, Thomas A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter O.


Cooper, A. Duff
Levy, Thomas
Soper, Richard


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lewis, Oswald
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Daggar, George
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Storey, Samuel


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Mabane, William
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Duggan, Hubert John
McKeag, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Wayland, Sir William A.


Edwards, Charles
Maitland, Adam
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Elmley, Viscount
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale



Flint, Abraham John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glossop, C. W. H.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Mr. Holford Knight and Colonel Goodman.




NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Pearson, William G.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Rankin, Robert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rosbotham, S. T.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lawson, John James
Scone, Lord


Crooke, J. Smedley
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Crossley, A. C.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Marsden, Commander Arthur



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gledhill, Gilbert
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Mr. Logan and Mr. Tinker.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL,

"to amend the law relating to Matrimonial Causes," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS BILL,

"to encourage the formation of Industrial Councils, and to legalise voluntary agreements when so desired," presented by Mr. Mander; supported by Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Granville, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. Macmillan, and Sir Cooper Rawson; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th December, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

ROYAL NAVY

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: I beg to move,
That this House considers it would be dangerous further to reduce the personnel and matériel of the Royal Navy until greater progress towards Disarmament has been made by other Governments of the world, and urges His Majesty's Government to make no further unilateral reductions.
3. 54p.m.
It is with peculiar pleasure that I have taken advantage of the luck of the Ballot to put down this Motion on a matter which has always been very near to my heart. It is a matter which I am afraid is rather of the nature of a "Giant's Robe," and I cannot hope to do justice to it. I can only ask the House to extend to me, as I am sure it will, that generous sympathy which it always extends to any humble and earnest student. That will be
The staff my steps to stay, the hand to hold me fast";
and that, and the transcendental importance of the subject, may, I hope, be sufficient. My thesis is a very simple one. It is that the Navy is England, and that England, in, the larger sense, is the Navy, and the one is inseparable from the other. It follows, of course, that the decline of the one means to a certain extent the blotting out of the other—the blotting out of not only the importance but the power of a great nation, and the loss, probably the irreparable loss, of everything that we hold dear.
It is a thesis that, as our neighbours say, jumps to the eye. It involves no intricate problem, and no figures are, I believe, necessary to prove it. The mind needs only to be carried back a very short while, as years go, and a child could see the unwisdom, the folly, I might even say the criminal folly, into which we have been led. We are the masters of a wonderful land and of a splendid. Empire. We do not seem to be aware that our ancestors gave us that Empire, marvellous as it is, untouched and unspoiled, mighty beyond words, and likely, if we only do our duty, to be still mightier in the future. That Empire can be lost through neglect or want of ceaseless vigilance. We acquired that Empire "while yet the world was small," and we seem to think that it
fell into our lap and that it cannot fall out again, or that it cannot be taken out of our lap. It is nearly 900 years since Duke William came to this land with his Northmen, followed by many others of his kindred and of the same breed. He became, as he said, the First Englishman. It is 500 years since we betrayed and deserted Normandy and she was forced to accept the sovereignty of France. Since that time no armed alien has invaded this land. William came, and he
Conquered the land and fortified the keep,
to quote the words of that beautiful old song which was, I believe, first quoted in this House by the late Joseph Chamberlain. He divided the land among his people. He divided it into lordships. They took it as freemen, and that freehold they held, in the main, by military service. We ourselves have landed in arms in many countries, but no armed alien has invaded this land and made good for that period of 900 years. There is no doubt that that has been due to the pluck of our people, and more especially to the fact that our people were a sea-loving and sea-roving people, full of daring—the parents of our present bluejackets.
Our immunity from attack, and possibly our willingness to attack by which we acquired and held our Empire, was due to our Navy, and so it will ever be as long as we exist and flourish. Our immunity is due, as was said last week by my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench below the Gangway, to the fear that other nations have of attacking us. That fear, as far as I can see, is dying out. It is dying out because people see the little care that we are giving to our shield and spear. To-day the Royal Navy has been out down; it has already been said that it has been cut to the bone. It has been cut below the danger line. It has been living on its prestige. I admit that that prestige is great. At the same time we must remember that we are bound hand and foot by treaties. There is no escape from that thraldom. And when those treaties expire, or if we have to denounce them, then when we have to set about building up our Navy anew, the so-called friendly peoples will say that we are making preparations for war, and it will depend entirely on the backbone of
the Ministry of the day if we listen to the hue and cry against protecting our own.
Not so many years ago—in 1887—it was decided, by those who knew, that we required 186 cruisers as a minimum. I need not say that we found that number absolutely inadequate when war came upon us. But since the war, in absolute opposition to what Mr. Balfour claimed at the Washington Conference, we have cut that number down to 70, and a paternal Socialist Government cut down the number further to 50 under certain conditions. The safety of the country does not seem to have been considered at all. It was the money cost, the immediate saving which seemed to govern the people who were then in office. It was not saving; it was not economy. It was extravagance of the very wildest type—the extravagance of the gambler. It will have to be paid for some day unquestionably. It was dangerous folly. Let us hope it was not suicidal folly. Economise on everything and on anybody, said the Socialists, but not on the social services. Cut down the fighting services but the ogre of the social services must be fed, unmindful of the fact that if the ogre of social services is not protected in his food supply, he will certainly starve. Fifty cruisers ! We have not cruisers enough to do the work even in peace time, and in war the number is absolutely inadequate. We depend on cruisers for our very life. I need not tell this House, which knows it, that we have not food in this country for more than six weeks at the most. We must have cruisers to keep our trade routes open, and we have not got them.
The history of the Royal Navy is the history of the country and of the Empire, and there is no other history so fine. The Royal Navy at this moment is in danger of eclipse, and if that comes it will be final. There will be no recovery for us. No one will allow us to build "pocket battleships." If anyone imagines they will, I think that they are seriously mistaken. Our freedom would be gone, our money would be gone, and we would return to the serfdom of the Saxon 900 years ago. Although I do not wish to repeat what I have said in this House many times, we all know that
in the years 1914 to 1918 the safety and inviolability of this country were entirely in the hands of the Navy. It was a terrible time, but there was no hint of starvation in this land, and there was no fear and there was no suffering. We never dreamed of defeat. People said, "What are you grousing about? Have we not the Navy?" That was the effect if not the words. The country now gives little thought to the Navy. It looks upon the Navy just as it does upon the sun, which does rise even in London every morning. It looks upon the Navy as part of itself, like its house, its food, its children. The Navy is the silent force, with one or two remarkable exceptions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are they?"] My hon. Friend, who has been in this House nearly as long as I have, wishes to know who they are. I will give him a holiday task, to read the OFFICIAL REPORT. Not a hostile foot in this country for 900 years, and yet this is, of all lands, the most beautiful and the most desirable? If I may break into Latin:
Ille terrarum mihi praeter omnes Angulus ridet
So desirable is this land that men will not migrate. They are too happy where they are, and are afraid of going to lands which they think are not comparable to theirs.
Without the Navy, the Empire could not have been born, existed, or come together. Without our Navy, the Empire would break up and disintegrate and this disintegration, if it comes, will come quickly, like a thief in the night. Without the Navy, as I have said before in this House, not a soldier could have been landed in France, Greece, Gallipoli, Egypt or Mesopotamia, and, further, not one of those men who came to us from overseas could have come to fight for this country. The Navy fed and clothed them, gave them arms and ammunition, and grandly did the Army, both regular and volunteer—men from every latitude—come to fight for Home. Nobly did they respond to the "call of the blood and justify their birthright and the great efforts of the Navy, and do their best, giving their young hearts and their lives to their country. What a record! May I ask what do we do, we who benefited by their devotion, their suffering, their agonies and bloody sweat? We buy poppies and scatter wreaths, but we for-
get the dead and all that they died for. And so this Motion is necessary. They died for us, for home, for freedom and for Empire, and we give lip-service and flowers to their memories. We have cut the Services of their pride, the very forces which they made victorious and efficient. I do not like dropping into poetry, but I am going to quote a few lines from a very great man relative to those who died for us:
All that they gave they gave
In sure and perfect faith.
There can no whisper reach the grave
To make them grudge their death,
Save only this—save only this,
We they redeemed deny their blood and
mock the gains they won.
Do we not daily deny their sacrifice? Peter denied three times—and the cock crew! I prefer Paul.
Shame on the flame so dying to an ember,
Shame on the reed so lightly overset.
Have I not seen Him—can I not remember,
Have I not known Him, and can Paul forget?
Can we forget the work of those men? Have they really died in vain; and, if riot., what are we going to do or contemplating to do? In the words of a brilliant writer who was here a few moments ago, and who, I hope, is going to return—
The unarmed and untrained island nation, who with no defence but its Navy—
which line reminds me of the Prayer Book:
We have none to fight for us but only Thou.
Only the Navy which
had faced unquestioningly the strongest manifestation of military power in human record has completed its task.
Those are the lines of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). What a record! And when the United States of North America—because I prefer to call them under that new term—came into the War, a war into which Germany shamed them, a war in which we were fighting for them certainly as much as for ourselves, it was our Navy which conveyed them across what our ancestors called the "Swan's bath—"troops, arms, munitions, clothing and food and permitted them to put up the good, but belated, show they did. In all that time, with all those millions of men,
there was never a man lost unless he had the misfortune to be in a hospital ship or passenger vessel. The Navy did this, the Navy did much more, and the War was won! Is there any man in this world who would dare to get up and bring forward the thesis that the War would not have been irremediably and irreparably lost if it had not been for His Majesty's Navy, strong, efficient, contented and glorying in its work? A generation ago there was a nation which considered war with us, until it considered our Navy and considered its own. Matters have greatly changed since then to our disadvantage. If that nation had not seen reason, we should not have been fighting by her side for four long years of war. I was reading a similar story in the Book which related how spies of the Israelites were sent into the promised land. They returned and said:
The people are a warlike people. They have many walled cities. Moreover, the children of Anak dwell therein.
It was not an easy job, and they put it off. The same thing has been put off many times in our case because of our Navy.
Hon. Members do not believe in the ancient maxims of great conquerors and colonisers who, as long as they were true to their maxims, governed the world for the benefit of the world. They deny the dictum of the greatest of war writers that war is merely a "continuation of State policy in another form." The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) who is a master of clear exposition, laid before the House the other day his view, and a sound view, of the history of the ancient Romans. They were the greatest rulers of the world as long as they stuck to their wise maxims, keeping 'what they had and preparing successful war measures against those who wished to take it from them—para bellum.Many have said, and continue to say, that war is "unthinkable," although they know their statement is not absolutely accurate—indeed, absolutely untrue. We know that, if war came, it would mean the destruction of our civilisation. Other great civilisations have been destroyed unwept and unsung. It might be our fate. We know that any war, especially a naval war with a great Power, was scoffed at in 1914 and a, while
before. Everyone said the Kaiser was building a fleet for his own amusement that he might see it paddle about the North Sea as a child might see his tin boat in a bath. The cupidity of a nation is never ending and is unsatisfiable. You can read Tacitus. He will give you some pleasant hours. Also do not forget that we own a fifth of the habitable world and, with very few exceptions, the best part. We have weakened our Navy to no purpose. We have weakened it to please a certain nation which will give us no help! And no thanks! It will only dictate to us. Yet we stand in the way of a very great maritime nation, perhaps the only great friendly nation that we have in the world, and we have not treated her too well. That is Japan. After a defeat where should we be? We are an over-populated land, unable to feed ourselves, rich in fighting men—cannon fodder for the conqueror. We are rich in iron, steel, coal and horses; all that God Almighty could give, He has given us. All that would be spoiled if the invader came.
Let there be no mistake, if we have no Navy we have less Army and, what is more, if we have less Army we have no arms to give an Army if we could improvise one. The Navy is, to my mind, of the very greatest earthly importance to every man in the country. The importance of employment, the importance of the debt is as nothing compared with the efficiency and contentment of the Navy. Let it not be forgotten that any attempt to tamper with the debt would require a very strong Navy indeed. As an ex-First Lord has said, "The British Empire is not for sale." There is a suggestion that we should clear our Empire of debt to ourselves—I have made it many times. We forgave other nations much money that they owed us for the simple reason that we knew they would not pay. We made a gesture. But we are taking a pound of flesh from our kin, a "debt" to us because of their wonderful spontaneous willingness to come and help us. It is not even yet too late, although we are not rich now, to wipe out that debt.
Tell the truth to the British people. They are a tough and a robust people and they deserve the truth.
Tell the country that we have only a remnant of our great Navy, and
that not one single class of ships sufficient in itself, in numbers or power. Tell the country that the Navy does not stand where it did, that it is not strong enough for its duties even in peace and not strong enough in personnel or in materiel nor, I regret to say, is it contented enough at this moment to play the role that it has played in the past. It is a disappearing force. If it gets too weak, or if others think it too weak—God forbid that that hour should synchronise—there will be war and there will be starvation for our people. Tell the country that most of our ships are old and are veritable coffins and that, if they were asked to fight, they could not fight, and could not get away. The German Admiralty, as we know now, sent out all its old ships on scouting expeditions and we are told it became a joke amongst the ratings of the German Navy, who used to say when the ships went out, "We shall not see you again," and if those ships had met us they would not have seen the men again. That was one of the causes, and a very just cause, of the mutiny in the German Navy.
The nation should be told the truth and, if we are not prepared to do it, the Conservative and Unionist party will be swept away, and it will join the ranks of the old Liberals in the Ewizkeit. We can build ships, armour and guns as quickly as anyone, possibly quicker, and certainly better, but the personnel cannot be brought to a fighting pitch without long and continuous service. You can build a big ship in a year, as we built the "Dreadnought" at Portsmouth, but you cannot bring a rating into real fighting value for five or six years at the least. He is a picked man. He must be fit and well, not flat-footed, chest measurement and his eyesight must be good and he must have almost all his teeth. It is not every man who can come up to that standard. Again, he should be taken as a boy. If he is taken as a boy, then at the age of 18 he becomes a man, and at 25 he is allowed to marry and get a marriage allowance. After 12 years, if he is fortunate, he is allowed to re-engage for 10 years, and at the end of that time, if he is again fortunate and gets into no trouble, he gets a pension, and it is a fair pension. He knows the glory of the Service and he knows the history
of the Service. It is good for him that he does and it enhances his opinion of himself. Tell the country that the number of our ratings is not equal to those of Japan and is very much less than the number of the ratings of the United States of North America. Their Navy is larger, better paid and better looked after. There are some people who say that some of our ratings even desert to join them, but that is hearsay.
We are not recruiting for the Navy generally. At this moment we are recruiting stokers only and seven boys per week at the headquarters of the Fleet—Portsmouth. The best matelots are those who enlisted as boys. The life of a matelot is not all hardship. He is liable to duty 24 hours of a day and seven days a week. He is not too generously paid but he is worth his weight in coin of the realm to the country. He belongs to, and is part and parcel of, a splendid force. His ship is his club, and he sees the world in pleasant company. His sleeping accommodation is not good, and is certainly not as good as that of those gentlemen who on late nights have to "doss it" in the Library. There, at any rate, they are in comfort and are not so closely packed as he is. His food is indifferent. He has, even now, many grievances, and, owing to the shortness of numbers, when he comes back from a foreign station he is almost immediately drafted to another foreign station. That is against what has been promised to him. His promotion is very slow, and it is getting, if possible, slower. He must serve for at least eight years before he can hope to be a petty officer, and a great many years more before he can hope to be a chief. He cannot write to, or call upon, his Member of Parliament. That is certainly right as regards disciplinary matters; and with regard to other grievances I am not now at all anxious, for his women folk have the vote. I do not know a Member, not even on the Front Bench, who is prepared to meet, and to argue with, the mother, mother-in-law, wife or sweetheart of a rating who comes to demand "justice" for her man. So the fact that a rating cannot call upon a Member of Parliament troubles me but very little.
Tell the country that 10,000 officers and men have been put out of the Navy in the last few years; that, according to a
Naval correspondent of a newspaper, they have been "got rid of." The rating aims at rising in his own ranks on his own lower deck. A few ratings wish to rise to the quarter deck, but they are very few. The rating is no snob. He wants recognition, some real privilege and power, all of which is denied to him, even to the chief petty officer. He asks for some prestige to allow him to take his proper place, and, what is even more important, to keep others in their proper place, for quicker promotion, and for some reasonable and tangible rewards for good service.
The robe is too heavy for me and is too loose upon my shoulders. I have touched upon but a few of the points I had wished to touch upon. But had I done so, I should have left no time to my friends on either side of me and in front of me, and, particularly, I should have left no time for my friend the First Lord in whom I have very great confidence born of many years' acquaintance when he held posts perhaps as onerous and less pleasant than his present one. I trust that he may be able to remove at least some of our fears. I thank the House sincerely for listening so patiently to me. I am aware that it is the subject and not the individual which has had a claim to their consideration.

Commander MARSDEN: I beg to second the Motion.
4.35 p.m.
May I first congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) for having introduced this subject. At this particular time, when all our minds and thoughts are filled with anxiety for the prosperity of this country, I think it is a very good thing that this House, and in fact that the whole country, should fully realise that no prosperity can come without full security. The people who believe in and support this Motion will agree that security is best provided by the British Navy. I know that there is a great deal of thought throughout the country that disarmament must come before security; but our position is this: We argue that a strong Royal Navy has provided the security for hundreds of years, whereas if we came to disarm it might be an experiment which, if it was unsuccessful, would really produce the absolute disin-
tegration of the whole Empire, everything which we hold most sacred in our minds and thoughts. That is something which has to be well borne in mind.
Those who believe in that strong Navy will perhaps permit me to point out the position in which we stand. In 1914 we went to war with an efficient force, but relative to the numbers necessary to win the war very small indeed. The naval officer in this matter is in a peculiar position. He is not allowed to say what he thinks. Responsibility for the safety of the Empire has always been very clearly defined for those who take the trouble to find out the position. It is the Government who must say what is to be protected, and it is the naval officer, as far as the sea is concerned, who has to say how it is to be protected. You may think, as you probably realise many naval officers did, that it is a most extraordinary type of Government which will lead them into war, as this country was brought to war in 1914, with a Navy of purely modest dimensions compared with the enormous forces which were eventually necessary to win the War. I think that that might be very much better put from the point of view of the Army. What can the Army officers say of a policy which brings them into war with a small Expeditionary Force of a little over 100,000 men, when it is necessary to produce a force of millions of men before the war is won? I can imagine what the Army officers would say about it if let loose.
What is our position now? There are all sorts of suggestions that armaments should be reduced. I think that the actual suggestions put forward in the last White Paper are the most practical and possible suggestions which have yet been put forward. We are hounded on all sides, at least I am, by postcards from people who demand that our armaments shall be cut down to the limits suggested by President Hoover. That might be all right if we could determine at what point that formula should be applied. If it should be applied from the point of view of the state of the forces necessary to win the Great War—that is to say, the position on 11th November, 1918—it might be one we might entertain with some feeling that our country would be safeguarded in the future. But to apply the
formula now when we have cut down to far less than even we are allowed by the Washington Conference is a most hopeless and futile suggestion.
As regards our Fleet, at present there are battleships, cruisers, destroyers and other craft. The battleships have been reduced by the most successful steps towards reduction through the Washington Conference, and then through the London Conference. I presume there will be a similar conference in 1936, and we can take it that everything indicates that after that, whenever further construction of battleships is made, the tonnage of each individual ship will be considerably reduced. There again, it is most foolish to talk about 10,000-ton battleships. They are a useless size and most uneconomical. I have no doubt, with regard to the German battleships of 10,000 tons which are being built now and which are taking four years to build and costing £4,000,000—although I am not a constructor—that a larger and equally efficient ship, say half the size again could be built for considerably less expenditure of money. Therefore, although we should reduce our battleships for future construction by a very large figure I do not see how, in order to combat the various perils which encounter the battleship at sea, they can possibly be reduced to, say, under 20,000 tons. For the moment the battleship construction has stopped and no more ships can be built until it is decided what the Conference shall say in 1936.
The subject of cruisers requires the closest consideration of everybody interested in the Navy. At the present moment, according to the official figures, we have nine cruisers over age. They, by the formula given to the House, have passed their full age of service. It may be argued that the same definite line cannot be drawn in the case of every ship. Some ships are well looked after and possibly are better built and may have a longer life, but cruisers having had a severer period of service may not last as long. If we take the 20 years at present set forth as a legitimate and fair life, we have nine cruisers which are over age, and I estimate that in 1936, even after the present construction programme is completed, we shall have something like 18 cruisers out of date and over age. Yet these will stand in every return of the strength of the fleets of the world as equal to the most modern fight-
ing and powerful ships which are being built by other navies. It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It may be that some hon. Members are glad that we are not building more ships, but I hope that they will realise, as my hon. Friend who moved the Motion pointed out, that when certain German ships went on patrol their friends said goodbye to them. Let the House fully realise that that also happened in our Navy. Many ships went to sea with the full knowledge that if they met any of the enemy ships which were superior and stronger they would be sunk. There is no doubt that Admiral Craddock went into action off Coronel with the full consciousness that he could not survive that action, nor did he.
The next ship I wish to say a word about is the destroyer. At the end, in order to win the War, we actually had in commission 527 destroyers, including torpedo boats. The actual number of destroyers now, is, I think, somewhere round about 140, but the number which is not over age—and 12 years has been given as the age of a destroyer—is only 54, whereas of the other capital nations Japan has 97, France 59, United States of North America 78, and Italy 57. Torpedo boat destroyers are not, as is inclined to be argued occasionally, used for the sole purpose of destroying, attacking and keeping under submarines. Their name says what they are—torpedo boat destroyers. They were built in the first case to combat the tremendous numbers of small torpedo boats built for the obvious purpose of attacking our Fleet. Now they have increased in size and strength and are used frequently for every service of which you can think. They have to attack battleships, as some of us know to our cost. They have to attack submarines. They have to take people about on visits to the Fleet. They do every conceivable thing. Yet during the whole of that time directly they are outside the limits of the protection of our heavy ships they stand the chance of meeting much heavier forces of the enemy. It is really a subject about which I hope the First Lord will tell us something in his reply.
Why is it that we have only 54 destroyers under 12 years old at the present time compared with the much superior forces of other countries? One
of their chief duties in war would be the protection of our commerce. No longer can we say that the trade routes are open pr shut or anything like that. Each individual ship, or each individual group of ships, must be sufficiently protected from one port to the other. Take the position of the Mediterranean alone. We could give no end of reasons why, through the defence of Egypt, the Suez Canal should be kept open, but we take no measures to see that commerce going, through the Mediterranean to the Suez Canal can be protected. I do not know how far one would be in order in commenting on the possibility of attack by any particular nation, but there are nations who command the Mediterranean, and if they said that our commerce could not go through, it could not go through, and it would be idle and foolhardy to attempt it.
I should like to say a few words in regard to protecting our commerce overseas. It is well known throughout this country that the chief duty of our Fleet is to ensure that adequate supplies reach these shores. To that end the battle fleet exists, whose main duty is to look after the enemy's battle fleet and to keep it in check, while the convoying duty depends mainly on the cruisers and destroyers. As a result of the Ottawa Conference much more of our food must come from overseas, from Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand instead of from countries nearer at hand. That means that there will be much more for our commerce protectors to do. There is another question which is of a most important nature, and that is the position of the enemy raider. At the present time Germany, which is only allowed to build ships up to 10,000 tons, has evolved a most dangerous type of ship which will upset the whole calculations of battleship construction throughout the world. These ships are very strong but not of very great speed, 26 knots, armed with 11-inch guns, and with an enormous radius of action. If these ships got out on to our trade routes we should find ourselves possessed of only three ships that could compete with them. They could run away from our battleships while our cruisers if they got within gun range would not stand a chance.
These new ships will practically fulfil the role of a ship which was built by
the French 40 years ago, in regard to which one of the most prominent French nautical writers, in describing its functions, said that its orders were to "mercilessly attack the weak, to fly without shame, before the strong." That is what the "Deutschland" and similar ships could do, and in the whole of our Fleet we possess only three ships that could hold them in check. We have the "Hood," the "Repulse," and the "Renown" with sufficient speed and gun-power to outmatch this new type of ship. If the Deutschland or any other ships of the same type that are built ever come within range of those three battle cruisers they are for it, but it is very difficult to find them and to get them in the right place. The point to remember is, that of all our ships in the British Navy capable of defending our commerce against the range of such ships, we have only three vessels, and those are battle cruisers.
The second part of the Motion deals with the personnel of the Service. Here is perhaps the most difficult matter which a naval officer like myself can talk about. Last year we held back, and I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty appreciated the reservations that we made in dealing with this matter. We have still to bear in mind the unfortunate incident at Invergordon. Alter some apace of time I am almost forced to the conclusion that that incident was not a bad thing for the Navy as a whole, because the Navy is a very Conservative Service. It is, one might say, almost hidebound, with all sorts of precedents, all sorts of laws within laws, and most of all, unwritten laws. I think the Invergordon incident gave the First Lord a chance to make new laws and new regulations and to bring in new ideas. Although I called for more drastic action than was taken at the time I can only say now from close observation that I think the First Lord's policy in this respect has borne good fruit.
I was one of a group of Members who went to see His Majesty inspect the fleet in July, and hon. Members who were present with me would, I think, say that they were surprised at the extraordinary proficiency of the Service which they saw and also by the spirit of the men. I was not altogether surprised, knowing the Navy, but I was very considerably re-
lieved. But I do not think the improvement has yet gone far enough. The other day, for example, we saw in quick succession, one after the other, 12 or 14 captains promoted to the rank of Admiral on one day, and retired the same day. I do not think that makes for efficiency in the slightest degree. Officers are human, and when they know that they are going to get what they commonly call "the blue ticket," you cannot get in the last few years of an officer's service that full value which you would get if there was the same keen competition and the certainty of employment on reaching flag rank.
The whole list of officers requires radically to be cut down. The gradient is not nearly steep enough. There was one significant incident in the extraordinary feeling between officers and men in the Invergordon mutiny—it was a mutiny, and a most extraordinary mutiny. The extraordinary part was that there was never in any of the inquiries I have been able to make a single instance of impertinence from a man to an officer. The general feeling on the part of the men seemed to be: "We are in a much stronger position with various Members of Parliament than you officers are. You stand on one side, and we will get you everything you cannot get for yourselves." That was rather the general feeling throughout, and I think that really was due to the fact that owing to the large number of officers and petty officers in the ships to-day the officer does not get a chance of showing his individuality in command as in the old ships. In such enormous floating towns as the "Rodney" and the "Nelson" the number of officers is simply colossal. If we had the same number of officers as existed in the ships when the First Lord first went to sea—a captain, a commander, a navigator, and the four watch-keeping lieutenants, I think those six or seven officers would achieve a position which the present officer cannot achieve.
As regards the petty officers, the same arguments apply. The relations between the officers and the men are perhaps too cordial. Officers get very fond of certain men or perhaps particularly fond of one man and try to rate him up, on the ground that he is a most delightful man and that, they would like to see him a petty officer, a warrant officer or even a commissioned officer. They are pushing them up too
far, if anything. The men are rather inclined to look upon promotion to the rank of petty officer and chief petty officer as a reward for length of service and good conduct, rather than a reward for ability in taking command. You get so many types of petty officers. A large number of men enter the Service practically as petty officers. Petty officers in the Navy have certain privileges. They live on the mess deck in special messes, and they get special facilities in many ways. They go ashore under more comfortable circumstances, and more frequently. In fact, the petty officer's badge now is not so much a badge of authority as a badge of social distinction. I trust that the First Lord and his advisers will find some way of picking out the executive petty officer who is to take command and to distinguish him out from the petty officer who achieves his rank by virtue of his professional calling.
It is a most important subject that we are discussing to-day and I hope that we shall have many views expressed. I will only say, finally, that I think all sections of the House, whether they believe in a strong Navy or a weak. Navy, will agree on one thing, and that is that the Navy which does exist and that the ships which we have should not be out-of-date ships, fit to be put on the scrap heap, but the most efficient type of vessel that the country can possibly produce.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
approves of the advances already effected by the Government in the diminution of the personnel and materiel of the Royal Navy, and urges the Government to continue to press among all nations for agreement upon further reduction until the declaration made on behalf of the Allies on the occasion of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles has been fully redeemed.
4.55 p.m.
This is a very important and interesting Debate and many hon. Members would like to take part in it. According to the Rules of the House the Debate must come to an end at 7.30 p.m. I therefore propose to take a very short voyage, not for lack of fuel but in order that other vessels may have an opportunity of taking the water. We were all impressed by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle). He impressed us by his deep
sincerity, but I could not help thinking that his speech was more appropriate to the Victorian age of which, if I may say so without offence, he is so distinguished a representative. That was a time when the Fleet of England was our all-in-all, when, as he said, the Navy was England and England the Navy. That was a time when every nation was armed for its own defence against every other nation, the result being a continued and fierce armaments race, which ended in a disastrous war. Since the conclusion of that War the Governments of the nations have been trying to adopt another method. They have been trying to build up a system of international law and international security. One of the objects of the Government has been to outlaw war as a method of national policy, and that armaments in the future should be regulated by international agreement.

Sir B. FALLE: How would you enforce it?

Mr. COCKS: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will wait, and I will deal with that point. We know very well that this process of establishing a new order of society is by no means complete. The progress towards disarmament, especially on land and in the air, has been painfully slow and in many ways disappointing. We are today in a transitional age and in a new world. The world of ordered justice has not yet been born. At the same time the old world of international animosities has disappeared; we hope never to return. The position of the Navy, therefore, must be regarded in the light of these facts and these ideas. The Motion suggests that the Navy has been reduced by the method of unilateral reductions. What is the meaning of unilateral reductions? I have always understood that unilateral disarmament means that a nation disarms without any relation to what other countries are doing. It is a process to which I am personally unalterably opposed. I have never been in favour of unilateral disarmament, and when I look back on the history of the Navy during the last few years it seems that the reductions have not been unilateral but reductions carried out by agreements and by treaties. The limitation of armaments in the British Navy has been regulated by certain treaties which have also regulated the limitation of armaments of other nations.
Ten years ago, enormous building programmes were either being started or contemplated. A very heavy building programme had been drawn up by the United States of America, and by Japan. Programmes of colossal armaments had been drawn up or were in process of being carried out. In this country we had plans and designs ready for battleships of 45,000 tons, armed with 18-inch and 20-inch guns. On the morrow of the most disastrous war for civilisation preparations were being made for the building of vast armadas of man-destroying machines to breast the waves of the Atlantic and the Pacific. What happened? We had the Washington Conference; and as a result of that Conference this country destroyed 24 great battleships, representing a total tonnage displacement of 583,000 tons. The British Government took 24 superb vessels, many of them bearing the battle honours of famous and terrible victories, and sent them to the shipbreaker. It was a great sacrifice. At the same time the United States of America destroyed 28 battleships, representing 846,000 tons, and Japan agreed to destroy 16 battleships representing 450,000 tons. Some of the battleships I know had not been started, but they were contemplated, and no doubt would have been built by this time if we had not agreed to scrap the programme of shipbuilding. I do not know whether we sacrificed ships which were afloat but we agreed not to build; and if it had not been for the Washington Conference these ships would be afloat to-day.
My point is that as a result of the Washington Conference 60 battleships belonging to three nations, representing a tonnage of 1,846,000 tons, were removed from the navy lists of the world. No one doubts that the action of the late Lord Balfour in accepting the proposal of Mr. Hughes was a wise, far-reaching and far-seeing act of statesmanship. The Washington Conference, although it limited battleships in this way, did not limit or regulate cruisers and destroyers in the same way. What was the consequence? The result was a race in cruisers between various nations, especially in large and powerful cruisers of 10,000 tons displacement. They were built in large numbers by America and Japan, and many by France, Italy and
ourselves. Thus two years ago the world was faced with this intensive race in large cruisers and the prospect of a large expenditure of money for the purpose of replacing battleships. What happened? A conference was called, the Conference of London, and the result of that Conference, so far as this country and the United States are concerned, was that we got parity in every type of vessel between ourselves and the United States. There are slight differences I know but, generally speaking, we got parity between ourselves and America. As far as Japan was concerned we got an agreement by which her armaments were limited in the different categories of vessels according to a certain ratio. The ratio was as 60 per cent. is to 100 per cent.; and in regard to battleships Japan was to get 60 to our 100: in armoured cruisers she got 60 per cent. and in large cruisers the ratio was between 60 and 72 per cent. Japan agreed to build only 12 large cruisers, four of which, however, were of 7,500 tons only, not 10,000 tons. We were to have 15 and the United States 18. As far as small cruisers were concerned Japan agreed to a ratio of 70 per cent., in destroyers to 70 per cent., and in regard to submarines to parity with ourselves and the United States. She also agreed to extend the battleship holiday until 1936.
It was very unfortunate that at that Conference there was no agreement between France and Italy. I hope that such an agreement will be brought about, and I am quite sure that His Majesty's Government are always willing to offer their good offices, if necessary, to bring about an agreement between our two former Allies. The suggestion has occurred to me that it might be a good plan if, for say three weeks or a fortnight or a month in every year, the British, French and Italian Fleets in the Mediterranean might meet, not at manoeuvres because that suggests war, but to take part in general fleet exercises, or to take a cruise together to certain of the more attractive Mediterranean ports. The officers on the various ships would be able to entertain each other and I am sure that the members of the lower deck on shore would join together in pleasurable excursions. In the Northern Seas a similar arrangement might be made, and the German, French and the British ships might meet together in
Northern waters. It would help to an increase in friendship and a good understanding, and might remove envy and jealousy. I commend the suggestion to the earnest consideration of the First Lord. If the idea developed it might end in the formation of a nucleus for an international fleet.
As far as the immediate future is concerned, I should like to see the battleship entirely abolished, but if that is impossible, then it should be reduced to a maximum of 10,000 tons. The hon. and gallant Member for Battersea North (Commander Marsden) says that a 10,000 ton battleship is a useless size. I do not pretend to be a technical expert in these matters, but there are naval scientists, like Admiral Richmond, who do not agree with him. The great point of reducing battleships to 10,000 tons is that we should have a better chance of getting rid of submarines. That is a great point. Other nations will not give up submarines unless we give up the battleship. If, owing to the refusal of some Power like Japan, it is impracticable to bring about a reduction in the size of battleships to 40,000 tons, I ask the Government to pursue a policy of non-replacement, and to still further extend the battleship holiday in the hope that eventually some agreement will be reached. The fourth alternative, that the Government should advocate the construction of new battleships of 25,000 tons, would be the worst of all alternatives. It would be a waste of money, and whilst it might please armament firms in any other respect its effect would be bad.
Let me say one word about security. The hon. and gallant Member for Battersea North said that our security can best be secured by relying upon the Navy. It is impossible to get security through the Royal Navy unless it is a supreme Navy, equal to two or three other Powers combined. I say that security can best be obtained not by striving for an impossible supremacy but by a development of what I would call the principle of pooled security; by instituting a structure of international justice, an international society, by firmly upholding the principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Kellogg Pact, and by entering into some sort of agreement—I do not say that I am speaking for the
whole of the Labour party on this point—between nations by which every nation will agree that whenever a nation breaks the peace it shall be outlawed and visited by all the other nations of the world with swift and violent action. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) in his speech the other day did not quite adopt that point of view. I was rather interested in his remarks because the diagnosis which preceded his conclusions is much the same as mine of the international situation; and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will no doubt be gratified when I say that I largely agree with his view of the international situation. But the logical conclusion of the European situation is that there should be an agreement by which all nations should be bound automatically, without any question of the Governments of the nations deciding whether they should go into the war or not.
The argument that a nation must always itself decide whether it is to go to war or not, is the one thing that leads to international insecurity, because no one knows what a nation will do at any given moment. The analogy that I would use is that of a forest fire. You have a. very hot summer when the woods are dry as tinder. Fire breaks out on the prairie. Sparks are seen to be going in the direction of the forest. The duty of every one is to stamp out the fire so as to avoid a forest fire that may destroy a whole province. War to-day is like that. Anyone who starts war to-day might envelop the whole of the globe. It is the duty of civilised nations at once to stamp out a war when it starts. That is why I think it is so important that the situation in the Far East should be settled according to the principles of the Covenant of the League, for if it is not so settled it will make the task of those who are working for disarmament very difficult indeed in the future.
I would conclude as I began. I believe it is in the true application of the principle of pooled security that we can get national security. When we have got that we can proceed gradually to disarm. We shall then see all the navies of the world melt away. They will be replaced by something like an international police force. The White Ensign which floats so proudly over our harbours and our
ships will become what it really should be, an emblem of the resurrection and the life of human beings from the death and the bondage of war.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
5.18 p.m.
Like the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) I admire the sincerity which found expression in the phrasing of the speech of the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Fa11e), but I was appalled by the arguments that he used, and I propose to deal with some of them. The hon. Baronet very kindly told us at the beginning what was the thesis of his speech. I took down his words: "The Navy is England, and England is the Navy." That was his thesis. Then the hon. Baronet went on to lament the conditions to which the Navy had fallen in recent years. I could not help thinking that if, in spite of his eloquent pleas on behalf of the Navy, what he stated was true, he has not had a great deal of influence over those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who during the years since the War have occupied the Government benches, for they are mainly responsible for the condition of things which the hon. Baronet so much deplored. Then he went on to say a few things about the history of this country, and expressed some of the usual sentiments in regard to Empire. I can never hear the word "Empire" used without reminding myself that it always means subjection for some people somewhere. That has been true all through history, and it is still true. Empire means that some people are treating other people to forms of subjection which in course of time they grow to loathe, and inevitably that gives rise to antagonisms which in the end may prove disastrous to those who have talked of the glories of Empire.
But I have no time to go into the details of history as the hon. Baronet did. He made a remark about Britain living on its prestige. I suppose he meant its military and its naval prestige. I would remind him that a country can establish for itself another kind of prestige besides military and naval prestige. A country surely can establish for itself a prestige which would win world-wide respect because of its desire
to foster always and everywhere the spirit of co-operation and good will, and for myself I say that that kind of prestige is infinitely more admirable than military or naval prestige.

Sir B. FALLE: That is the prestige of China at the present moment.

Mr. BROWN: For the time being we are dealing with the British Navy, and the thesis of the hon. Baronet's speech is at the moment occupying my attention. It may be that I might have something to say about China later on, if time permits. The hon. Baronet said some very harsh things about what he called the paternal Socialist Government. He regarded the period of office of the Socialist Government, so far as the Navy was concerned, as a sort of reckless period. He said that the Labour Government were prepared to economise on the Navy, and I suppose he intended to imply the armed forces of the Crown, but that they were not prepared to economise on the social services. The hon. Baronet and those who speak with him are prepared to have wholesale economy on the social services and none on the Army and Navy and military equipments generally.

Sir B. FALLE: Hear, hear.

Mr. BROWN: That is the fundamental difference between those who sit on the Opposition benches and the hon. Member and those associated with him. We think that if in these days it is necessary to economise, if the nation cannot afford certain things, it should do without these naval and military equipments and armaments generally, and that its first concern should be the condition of the great masses of the people of this country. The hon. Baronet particularly deplored the fact that we have not now what he called enough cruisers, and he went on to say "Food is our very life, and unless the trade routes can be effectively protected we are under certain circumstances in imminent danger of starvation." I could not help thinking that unless the hon. Member can do something to alter the policy of the Government there will be very little trade at all in a little while, and no cruisers will be needed to protect the trade routes.
The hon. Baronet went on to stress the fact that England was a good place in which to live. I am not going to con-
trovert that point. The hon. Member argued that it was so good a place to live in that people will not migrate. Surely that is a one-sided way of putting the matter in regard to migration. Surely the hon. Baronet ought to have reminded himself and the House that it is not easy for people to migrate from this country now because other countries will not have them. There are all sorts of barriers and bars to entrance into other countries, our own Dominions included. Why have those barriers and bars been established? Mainly because of the very spirit of nationalism which the hon. Baronet by his speech is seeking to foster, and that same spirit of nationalism is responsible elsewhere for preventing the migration the ceasing of which he deplores. At the same time he seeks to foster the selfsame spirit that makes such movement impossible.
I ask the House: Why should nations fear one another as they do in this modern world? What are the reasons for their fear of one another? Are not those fears very largely artificial fears? Are they not kept alive very largely by artificial methods? Is it not true to say that the great masses of the people in any country are so absorbed in their daily occupations, so absorbed in getting their daily bread, that unless you nowadays put into operation artificial means for stimulating their pugnacious instincts they have no feeling of animosity against the peoples of any other country? It is the adoption of artificial methods to stimulate the pugnacious instincts of huge numbers of people that constitutes a real menace to the peace of the world. One of the ways of doing that is the way adopted by the hon. Baronet to-day. He has tried by his speech to make the people of this country fear. Because the Navy is in a condition which he does not like he has played upon the fears of the masses of the people. He hopes to work that fear up to a certain point, and to make public opinion so effective that the Government will embark again on large and powerful armaments. That is one of the methods employed. But the people in ordinary circumstances have no feeling of animosity to other peoples in the lands beyond the seas.
The hon. Baronet also talked about great conquerors. He has a peculiar interpretation of history. He probably
finds a great deal of satisfaction in reading stories of the great conquerors of the past. I do not know of what Empires he happened to be thinking while he was speaking. Was he thinking of Assyria, or Egypt, or Rome He was thinking of Rome, because he used a quotation regarding it. When I think of the great Empires of which he reminded us, I always remember what was at the base of those mighty Empires. I remember a writer who said that when Rome was in the heyday of its glory there could not have been fewer than 6,000,000 slaves at the base of the Roman Empire, human beings without rights or privileges or opportunities of any kind, most of them born to a childhood of hardship, passing on to a manhood of slavish work and an old age of unpitied neglect. If that is the view of the past which the hon. Baronet wants us in this age to emulate, then indeed most of us here have little or no sympathy with him.
The same story could be told about Assyria or Egypt. When I hear hon. Members plead for greater navies, greater armies, greater air forces I cannot help thinking of the condition of millions of people in this country who are, in many cases, without even the bare necessities of life. Yet we have hon. Members advocating the spending of more of the nation's money on armaments. It will be generally agreed that one great cause, perhaps the chief cause, of war in the modern world is economic rivalry. It is out of economic rivalries between nations that recent wars have arisen and if there are any future wars they will spring from those economic rivalries. Whatever the First Lord may say to us this afternoon as to future policy in regard to His Majesty's Navy, I fear that the policy of the Government in the economic sphere will produce rivalries which may make it necessary for them to do certain things—things which perhaps the First Lord will tell us they do not want to do. If you are going to stimulate economic rivalries you may be forced to embark on policies in regard to armaments on which otherwise you would not embark.
I wish to refer to a speech made last week by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). I listened to that speech with a great deal of interest and I think the right hon. Gentleman's argument might be stated
thus—that in a world armed to the teeth you would be quite sure to have peace. Perhaps I have not quoted him quite accurately, but I do not think I do him a great deal of injustice in putting that interpretation upon his argument. In any case he was for more armaments as a preservative of the peace of the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The hon. and gallant Baronet opposite agrees with that view. I should say that all history disproves the contention advanced by the right hon. Gentleman last week and by the hon. and gallant Baronet this afternoon. If we have a world armed to the teeth then sooner or later the arms will be put to use—make no mistake about it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook in reply to a speech by the Lord President of the Council on the subject of air forces a little time ago, advanced the argument that scientific development was conducive to what he called more humane warfare. I think he contended that warfare to-day was more humane than it was a century ago. In my view it is a tragedy that some of the most wonderful accomplishments of the human mind in its struggle with the forces of nature and in its co-operation with the forces of nature are in this age being prostituted to the basest and most ignoble uses.
One cannot think of the wonder of the conquest of the air, or the marvel of the submarine, without admiration for the way in which man has struggled through the ages against the adverse forces of nature and has now conquered and controlled those forces in a way which was perhaps little expected by him in the days that are gone. But it is indeed a tragedy that some of his most wonderful discoveries are in these modern times as I say prostituted to base and ignoble ends. If, instead of discussing a Motion which has behind it the idea of fostering feeling in this country in favour of a more powerful Navy and greater armaments, we were discussing ways and means of facilitating co-operation and good will among the nations of the world, we should be better engaged. It would be better for us to concern ourselves with that aspect of the question than for us to engage in propaganda having for its object to make it possible for greater
navies to sail the seas, more powerful armies to march upon the land and more powerful air fleets to float in the skies.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) will, I hope, forgive me and will not consider me impertinent or insolent if I attack the terms of his Motion and the subject-matter of his speech. He entered this House, I know, when I was still in my childhood and he has had a long and uninterrupted Parliamentary career. I do not intervene -in this Debate as a sailor or as a representative of a great seaport. town like my hon. and gallant Friend, but I happen to represent a constituency which has, like hundreds of others, been hit by two factors, the first of which is free imports and the second the injury done to trade by excessive taxation due to wasteful expenditure by the Exchequer on various unjustifiable ends. Further, I have a slight personal interest in this matter. My ability to serve in His Majesty's Forces will last for another 20 years and that is a privilege of which, should a crisis arise, I should certainly avail myself, reluctantly, I confess, and somewhat unreasonably, but in any case it enables me to claim that I have a personal interest in this matter and in the causes of international friction among which, in my view, one of the chief is large armaments. If I may put it in another way I arrogate to myself the right to decree my own suicide.
The hon. and gallant Baronet who moved the Motion had several advantages of which he was not slow to make use. It is true that the mere juxtaposition of the two words "royal" and "navy" is enough to deprive any Englishman of his reason and good sense. Those words immediately recall to us memories of the great Admirals of the past, of Rodney, Drake, Blake, Hood and Nelson, and of this emotion the purveyors of the news films in our cinemas are fully conscious. They know that there is nothing more thrilling to an English audience than the sight of a battleship contemptuously riding a stormy sea. Every hon. Member here, I make bold to say, has been thrilled by reading in the "World Crisis" the highly picturesque and coloured description of the Battle of Jutland by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Epping (Mr. Churchill). I submit, however, with great respect to this honourable House, that since the advent of the aerial arm all these considerations have fundamentally changed, and when I hear the hon. and gallant Baronet in a speech which might have been delivered in 1912 or in 1892, admitting that this subject lies very near his heart and going on to say that the Navy is England, I feel in my own heart an emotion of protest arising. In my view the Navy is not exclusively England nor is England exclusively the Navy. Rather is England Shakespeare and Milton, Cromwell and Darwin. And is nothing to be conceded to politics? If so, what of the leaders of our great party, Disraeli, Salisbury, Joseph Chamberlain and Balfour? Are they not part of England? At all events the last-named of that great four appreciated in 1922 that we were living in a completely changed world. It may be objectionable to the hon. Baronet to recognise these facts, but when he quoted to us
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I felt inclined to counter, with a Greek quotation:
[HON. MEMBERS: "Translate."] If hon. Members wish, I will readily translate it.
it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
That was said to Paul on the way to Damascus and I think it is at least equivalent to the hon. Member's story of the spies. As the hon. Baronet proceeded with his speech I wondered if for a brief moment the corpse of the late Lord Tennyson was turning in its grave. The hon. Baronet referred to the sanctity and inviolability of Great Britain and it might have been an echo from the works of Tennyson when he claimed that Britain was:
Compass'd by the inviolate sea.
Of course that is no longer possible however much we may regret it since the advent of air forces. It would be just as sensible for John of Gaunt to rise from the dead and refer to England as:
This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall.
Hon. Members will recall the rest of that quotation and I need not exhaust their patience with it but again perhaps I may say that it would be equally sensible
for some contemporary of Andrew Marvell to apostrophise his country to-day in these words:
Thou Paradise of the four seas,
That Heaven planted, us to please,
And, to exclude the world, did guard,
With watery, if not flaming, sword.
But the next couplet to which I would draw hon. Members' attention is highly prophetic if a day should come when, through international friction, bombs were being rained upon our cities:
What luckless apple did we taste
To make us mortal, and thee waste?
I do ask hon. Members who agree with the hon. and gallant Baronet who moved this Motion to exercise a little moderation in reference to this subject. Depend upon it that if any Chauvinistic or Imperialistic sentiment drops out in the course of this Debate, it will be seized upon ardently and earnestly by every little armament-monger here and abroad and he will make it an excuse for the revival of his revolting traffic. Before long you will have the old vicious circle of armaments going again and quite soon the hon. Baronet will find that there is another war and he and the First Lord of the Admiralty—who has, I hear, suggested that my sentiments are somewhat extraordinary—will have to replace "Rule Britannia" by some strains like "Good-night sweetheart" or "What shall we do with the drunken sailor"?
The Motion talks about a dangerous reduction in the strength of the Navy. Do let us face facts. To what is there danger? Is it danger to our security? Does that security mean, as was suggested just now, absolute supremacy over the rest of the world which shall enable us at all times and in all places to impose our will upon other nations? I suggest that in 1932 such a thesis is no longer acceptable or possible or tenable. We do not want any guarantee of national victory. What we do want is a guarantee against warfare and against any national victory such as that the fruits of which we are now enjoying. If hon. Members refer to security, then I ask, is there to be no security for the men of military age? Are they not entitled to be protected against themselves? The hon. and gallant Baronet referred to the "agonies and bloody sweat" which they had suffered. I hope that the conditions will never arise again in which those agonies will once mare be inevitable. It is some-
times said that armaments are a form of insurance, but what is this insurance? Where is the surrender value? Where is the sum realisable at maturity Armaments have been a direct cause of the death of millions of the supposedly assured.
My hon. Friend has, in the terms of his Resolution, these words: "No further unilateral reductions." It might be gathered from that, by people not thoroughly conversant with the figures, that other great naval Powers had not made great reductions, but they have in fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) gave the House a few of the facts, and I would remind the House that at the end of the War, while we had 45 capital ships, I believe, against 40 owned by the other nations of the world, that position was not deemed to be tolerable by the other great Powers, not excluding America. I would like to supplement the figures already submitted by these facts, that at the time of the Washington Conference the United States of North America had building some 16 battleships, while Japan, I believe, had a programme of 48, which she was going to build at the rate of two a year. That is leaving aside and quite out of consideration our own designs for enormous monsters of the sea, the size of which was assumed to be 45,000 tons and which were to be mounted with 18 or 20-inch guns.
Supposing there had been no London Naval Conference in 1930, which I have always held to be one of the greatest achievements of the present Prime Minister, we should now have imposed upon us an obligation to build, over a period of three years, five capital ships, representing a total cost to the nation of some £40,000,000. If there had been no London Naval Treaty and the nations of the world, other than ourselves, had not agreed to these general reductions, there would by now have been a vast American fleet, and that would have its reaction upon Japan. I leave the House to imagine the kind of international friction that might have ensued from that.
I want to go into some greater detail over the question of the capital ship. On the 7th July last His Majesty's Government proposed to reduce the maximum size of any future capital ship to 25,000
tons. We did not agree, most unfortunately, I think, to the scrapping of five of our 15 capital ships, as suggested by President Hoover, and in fact it seems to be the policy of His Majesty's Government that all the existing 15 capital ships shall be retained. But I wonder if I may be permitted to hope that the phrase, "the size of any future capital ship" may mean that no such ships will be constructed in the future. I hope very sincerely that that is not a vain hope, because if we do indulge in this kind of construction, it will be absolutely futile to advocate the abolition of the submarine, which is the obvious means of counter-attack against the menace of the battleship. It is just as sensible as proposing the reduction of the maximum figure for tanks to 20 tons, when we have, I believe, one solitary unsuccessful specimen.
If I may approach this subject in terms of war, I would remind the House that there is an extraordinarily strong expert view that now the super-battleship has become obsolete and is a mere liability. I may mention the names of such distinguished sailors as Sir Percy Scott, Admiral Richmond, Admiral Mark Kerr, and Admiral Sims—I think he is entitled to be considered an expert in this matter—and, of course, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter). When one thinks of this enormous body of testimony in criticism of what must obviously be, to any ambitious sailor, the pride and glory of his own profession, I think that that criticism ought to give us pause for a moment and make us reflect. When there is this tremendous division in expert opinion, there does not seem to be any case left for the retention of these monstrous craft. They are, in the view of many experts, merely a means of wasting money. The "Rodney" and the "Nelson" each cost £7,000,000 to construct, and the annual upkeep of one of these Gargantuan craft has been estimated as falling between £400,000 and £800,000. The annual maintenance of the "Rodney," if I may illustrate it with an intimate and somewhat immediate simile, is equivalent to the total economy contemplated over a period of five years by the ill-starred Circular 1421; and if we were to put the 15 capital ships immediately out of commission, as is sug-
gested not only by myself but by many experts, who know precisely what they are talking about, with absolute technical knowledge, it has been computed that we should save at least £10,000,000 a year.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: What about the men thrown out of work?

Mr. ADAMS: I will deal with the question of unemployment later. I would like to remind the House that for the last 10 years the Navy has cost about £550,000,000. Mercifully, I do not believe it has been in action more than about a dozen times during that period, but when one considers this immense expenditure upon a purely fugitive and hypothetical form of insurance, I think this House ought to reflect before consenting to that vast body of expenditure.
There are two grounds on which the Navy is supposed to serve the nation. The first is that it is supposed to be a police force, and the second is the ground of defence. The capital ship, the super-battleship of about 20,000 or 30,000 tons—and here again I quote from the meticulous study which I have made of the works of these various gallant gentlemen—requires, I understand, for its work a whole school of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. It is considerably slower than the cruiser and the destroyer, and, most serious of all, it is highly vulnerable. At night, I believe, it can be despatched by the cruiser and the destroyer, and by day, of course, it becomes the prey of the submarine and the aeroplane. Various elaborate experiments were made by the American Navy on the power of destruction of these vast super-battleships by the air arm. I will quote the effect upon three vessels. The first was the German battleship "Ostfriesland," on which four 2,000 lb. bombs were rained. They did not register a single hit, but they scored four near misses, and after the dropping of the fourth bomb that battleship proceeded to sink in 10 minutes. A little later the American obsolete battleship "Virginia" was bombed, and she became a total wreck in 48 seconds.

Commander MARSDEN: Was this against any defence?

Mr. ADAMS: No, but I will speak on that point in a moment, if my hon. and gallant Friend will not try to throw me
out of my course by this salvo of shots. I would like merely to mention further that the "New Jersey," on which a bomber dropped one 1,100 lb. bomb, almost immediately turned turtle. If it be said that these ships were not under weigh, that is true, but in another war, clearly, when you are operating with the Navy against the coasts of your enemy, the enemy would have the advantage of numerous aircraft, and the essence of aerial attack is numbers. I suggest to this House, and most hon. Members who have been in the Navy will probably agree, that it is possible to drop a low hanging smoke-cloud upon your battleships from the air, and that you may still proceed to attack front above the smoke-cloud, guided by the mastheads of your victim; and if you are afraid of antiaircraft guns, you can drop on these battleships phosphorescent bombs and put those anti-aircraft guns out of action.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will my hon. Friend allow me to—

Mr. ADAMS: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. The danger, I suggest, is that you are concentrating in a relatively small space an immense aggregation of wealth and life. In view of the experiments, which are well authenticated, by the American Admiralty, it is proved that you could have destroyed in a moment of time, in a, single flash from the sky, wealth amounting to £7,000,000 and a personnel of 1,200 souls. I suggest that it is too big a gamble to concentrate all that wealth and all that manhood on one highly vulnerable craft. It is said also that the battleship represents defence, but it can only be defensible as a defence against other capital ships. To the mere layman, the super-battleship symbolises aggression, and if it be said that the construction of these enormous battleships serves to solve the unemployment problem, I would ask if we really believe that wasteful and unwarranted construction is going to contribute seriously to this crying problem. If we really thought that, the proper course would be for us to construct a vast fleet of super-Dreadnoughts, to sail them solemnly into the middle of the Atlantic, and proceed to scuttle them. Then perhaps the scuttling party, headed, no doubt, by the hon. Member for North Portsmouth, would
return to port, and they would proceed to await the next consignment of scrap iron. It would be most unfortunate if the nations abroad were to mistake our motives during the period of construction.
I am not a Little Englander—I should not be a member of the great National party if I were—but I suggest that we must take a little responsibility for the threats and the dangers of a race in naval construction. After all, Great Britain did build the Dreadnought. The Dreadnought—the super-battleship—has always represented the big stick for smaller nations, and it is inappropriate that this country, which has always claimed to champion the cause of small nations, should seek to perpetuate what is in fact a most obsolete form of the big stick. The United States of North America have been alluded to several times in this Debate, and I think that even if we proceeded unilaterally to save an enormous amount of money by putting these 15 vast capital ships immediately out of commission, we should at least be depriving that great Republic on the other side of the Atlantic of one of their most effective arguments, which is that so long as you squander your treasure upon these useless armaments, which you will probably not use, so long we, the chief creditor nation, are entitled to keep you in the leading strings of poverty.

5.59 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I do not intend to indulge in a kind of tactical and strategical discussion with the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams), because I am not at all competent to talk about the relative merits of the various arms used in naval warfare. I should like to pay my tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle). As one who has been in the Navy, I found the speech very inspiring indeed, and it seemed to carry me away back into the history of this island, when the Navy was the very mainstay and absolute safeguard of the people of this realm. It is a fact that there is still on the Statute Book of this country a crime, for which death is the punishment, of arson in the Royal Dockyards. I do not think if the Attorney-General were here he would be able to correct me. The main point of the Amendment moved by
the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) seems to hinge round the declaration that was made by the Allies in the Treaty of Versailles to bring their forces down to the level of those of Germany. I say this with special reference to the size of battleships of 10,000 tons. It is worth while to see for a moment, in case hon. Members have not the terms of that declaration before them, what it says.
Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction and revision at least every ten years.
We have clearly laid down the principle that the Council of the League of Nations, in considereing what armaments—naval, military and air—are fitted for each State, shall take into account what armaments that particular State requires by its circumstances. It will riot be denied that if Germany had the same amount of territory now as she had before the Great War, she would have a strong case for equality of status in armaments and her wish to build up to the full strength of either the British Navy or the American Navy. That is not now the case. Germany has been deprived of all her over-sea possessions, and therefore it will equally well be recognised, not only by the Council of the League, but, I am sure, by this House, that Germany does not require and cannot require as great naval armaments as Powers which still have vast oversea responsibilities. That point will be more appreciated if we see it from the other side. England has no commitments in territory on the Continent of Europe, and we in this country would not wish to claim that we ought to have the same size Army as Continental Powers, which are even much smaller than we are. In our attitude to the size of our Army, we are carrying out the spirit envisaged by the Covenant of the League.
There appears to be a certain difficulty in the question of Germany's claim for equality of status. By the Treaty of Versailles, she is forbidden to build battleships of more than 10,000 tons. I am going to correct myself, and say warships of more than 10,000 tons, because, when that figure of 10,000 tons is
being considered, we ought to try to put ourselves in the position of the high contracting parties who made the Treaty of Versailles and see what was in their minds when they chose this figure of 10,000 tons. It is my contention, from a cursory study of the subject, that the figure of an upward limit of 10,000 tons was chosen because the Powers which won the War believed that in enforcing that limit they were virtually going to prevent Germany from building a battleship at all. Necessity, however, is the mother of invention, and we know how Germany has been able to build what are virtually battleships, restricting them to 10,000 tons. The ships of the Ersatz Preussen class have a radius of activity greater than our own battleships and as great as our cruisers and of very much greater destructive power; and they have, therefore, become battleships of the high seas.
By the London Treaty of 1930 Great Britain agreed. as did Japan and America, not to replace any of their existing battleships before 1936. In other words, we are virtually compelled to maintain these very battleships, some of which are up to 44,000 tons. What is the alternative? Suppose this country unilaterally deprived herself of all her battleships, the position would be that the British Empire would have no battleships, and Germany would have two or three very fast, powerful and modern battleships of under 10,000 tons. It must be agreed upon all sides that that would be an impossible situation. I think, therefore, that some adjustment of the present position is urgently necessary, and my suggestion is that in admitting Germany's claim to equality of status, we should give Germany the theoretical position of being able to build battleships of the same size as the great Powers have at present, but at the same time extract from her a voluntarily-made declaration that she will not before 1936, when the London Naval Treaty is due for revision, actually build any of the battleships for which I suggest she should be given the theoretical right to do. Then when 1936 comes, it will be possible for Japan, America and Great Britain and, we hope, France 'and Italy as well, with Germany, to zit round a conference table and agree upon a drastic restriction in the size and the number of any battle-
ships that they agree to allow themselves after that date. That solution would supply a method of recognising Germany's claim while not involving Great Britain in the new construction of small battleships, which I think would be deplored on all sides of the House, and later in 1936 it would leave the field clear for an entirely fresh review of the whole situation.
Reference has been made to the Navy as a police force, and its duties and accomplishments in that way have been somewhat decried. I wonder how many hon. Members are aware of not only the enormous number of police duties which the Navy does, but of the positive humanitarian duties which it does and which there is no other power in the world to carry out. It must be fresh in the memories of hon. Members how the British Navy saved hundreds of lives after the terrible earthquake at Messina, how it carried out the same duty after the earthquake at Kingston in Jamaica in 1908, and how only recently the New Zealand Government sent a special communication to His Majesty's Government saying haw much they appreciated the services of the small sloop which had carried out unique duties in saving life and in organising essential services after the terrible earthquake in the North Island of New Zealand last year. To those who contend that navies should be replaced by police forces, I would say that the British Navy is virtually a police force now, and if the time comes when its name is to be changed to that of a police force, there will be no change in the spirit of the officers and men who compose the Navy.
This Motion, which calls attention to the dangerous reductions of the personnel and the materiel of the Royal Navy, must meet our sympathy in the disordered state of the world, but I, for one, would not now go back on any of the reductions that have been made. Indeed, I earnestly hope that other governments in the world will join us in making further reductions by common agreement. We cannot make a further unilateral reduction. It would be unsafe to do so at this stage. This Motion has served a useful purpose in acting as a kind of news-sheet of the work that the Navy has done and is doing, and the spirit that actuates its personnel.

6.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: I should like to say how much I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Baronet who moved this Motion, but, having said that, I fee] that I cannot congratulate him on anything else. I must say, with respect, that his speech gave me a sort of Mafeking night feeling which always gives me a cold shiver down the spine. I am afraid that I cannot follow him in his felicitous verbiage, but I hope that that will be attributed—to quote the great Lord St. Vincent—to the poor sailor from whom neither much for nice speech can be expected. There is a point I wish to make in regard to battleships. An hon. Friend who preceded me made several points with which I agree. I cannot agree altogether with his deductions, but as, I think, the Member who has latest served in the Royal Navy and has spent much of the last few years in studying both ashore and afloat the conduct of war and the lessons of the late War, I hold the view that the Navy's function in peace time is a double one. There is the function of the police force and the function of preparing for war.
The First Lord, in a, speech the other day, mentioned a number of occasions on which cruisers had been asked for all over the world. Undoubtedly when there is a hurricane, a typhoon or an earthquake somewhere, the Navy does most useful work. There are other occasions which occur in the best regulated Empires when some savage potentate, such as King Cocoa of Bungo-Bungo, misbehaves himself and a ship has to be sent. In a case like that a cruiser is usually sent and it is just as effective as anything else. The armaments of a ship do not seem to matter. I am told that in many cases the thing that impresses the savage mind is the number of funnels which a ship has. In any case, a cruiser with six-inch guns is just as effective in dealing with a situation of that sort as any battleship. When war comes it is a different matter. All units of the Fleet, of every size and description, must then prepare to come together to form a great weapon of war. Some of them will continue to be employed on convoy work, protection of trade and so on, but others have, to join together to form a battle fleet to deal with the enemy battle fleet.
Perhaps we have been a little bit overmastered by the lessons, or the ex-
periences, rather, of the last War, which was fought under very specialised conditions. From the point of view of the Fleet, the War was fought mostly in the North Sea, in narrow waters, against an enemy whose lack of initiative will ever be one of the marvels of history. Our geographical position gave us an immense advantage, but in spite of that our battleships were, I think, a source of most acute anxiety to those who had to use them. The air arm had only been very partially developed by the end of the last War. It can be said that, practically, it took no part in the operations of the Fleet. Conditions have changed very much since. I have had very considerable experience of the air and have learned what aircraft can do, and I have realised, as well as anybody else, the inherent limitations which they have, but one must admit that the use of aircraft afloat is now a factor of the utmost importance and one which will very gravely limit the use of battleships, especially in narrow waters. In the case of a possible European war, our fleet would have to operate, probably, in narrow waters. There is another important factor, and that is that battleships are entirely dependent on their bases, their dockyards, and I am afraid that the hon. baronet the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) will have to realise that in the face of a Western European war his particular dockyard would be in a very precarious position; and so would the other dockyards of Chatham, Devonport and Sheerness. At the end of the War we had an opportunity, perhaps, which we failed to take, of moving our important dockyards. We scrapped Pembroke Dockyard and Queenstown. They were just the two we ought to have kept—those and Rosyth, with, if we could have afforded it, a canal between the Forth and the Clyde. The dockyards on the South Coast would be perfectly useless to us in the event of a war in Europe.
Then, the battleships which we have at present are all obsolete. Many of them are getting on for 20 years old. Even in the later ones there has been very little progress in the matter of protection. The ends of a battleship are always vulnerable to attack. One torpedo in the neighbourhood of the rudder and propellers of a battleship, and she is out
of action, a source of appalling anxiety to the commander of the force of which she is a part. I saw it myself in the War—after the battle of the Dogger Bank the "Lion" staggering back surrounded by destroyers; at Jutland, the "Marlborough," hit by one torpedo, staggering back calling for more and more destroyers. The confines of the North Sea are small. If I may quote a personal experience, the day before the battle of Jutland I was fishing in Loch Leven. Exactly 24 hours later I was in the thick of the battle, and I saw one of those great ships go up in a puff of smoke, with a thousand men wiped out. That gives one to think. Are we not, perhaps, putting too many eggs into one basket? When we consider how those ships are dependent upon bases which are now non-existent, one wonders how much use they would be to us in a war in remote quarters of the globe. In the old days Nelson could follow Villeneuve across the Atlantic, because all he wanted in case of repairs was a few sticks and string. Now it is a different matter. If those big ships are to operate all over the world we must have Singapore bases everywhere, because they cannot do without them.
Time after time I have worked out problems of this sort at the Staff College and elsewhere, and, whatever the official conclusion may have been, the conclusion come to by the vast number of officers taking part in those operations has always been that we cannot use those ships. If we fought a Far Eastern Power or even a Far Western Power we should be like two men armed with swords on opposite sides of a river: we could not fight each other. That is what causes me to wonder very much whether the battleships we now have are really of the value attributed to them by some people. Smaller ships have been built by other nations. I think the German "pocket battleship," as it is called, is a good example of what may be built in the future, if anything is built. I, personally, would very much rather see the Navy become an international police force than have another race in armaments, which nobody can afford, which is going to be a cause of war itself, and is going to end, probably, in something as bad as what happened before 1914. The international police force idea has been rather scoffed at by certain hon. Mem-
bers, but, after all, since the War the good work of our Navy has been confined to that kind of thing, and there will always be a necessity for it, and with such a, force we should have the nucleus of an adequate force and a useful force if, unfortunately, war should come.
I do hope that this Motion will not be taken too seriously in this country. I know it is put forward in a perfectly sincere manner, but I cannot agree with it. I do not think we are spending too much on the Navy, though I feel that in many respects we have been spending the money in a wrong way. It would be a very grave thing for the people in this country or outside it to get the impression that we in any way wish to enter into a competition once more. If we build no more battleships, and gradually reduce our existing number—so as not to disturb the personnel question too much—we shall be making a very. great contribution, without injuring ourselves in any way, to the solution of the problem which we all desire to see, namely, to make wars in all the world to cease.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to refer first to an interesting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) which, I think, deserves more attention than would appear at first sight. He suggested that various international forces—the British, the French and the Italian—might well get into the habit of holding joint manoeuvres in the Mediterranean, because when one considers the position under international law—if every nation kept its pledged word, and that is not inconceivable—the only circumstances in which they could be called upon to act would be in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations, to enforce sanctions or take some action against an aggressor. That was actually contemplated in the dispute between Bulgaria and Greece, when the possibility of an international blockade of Greece was under consideration. It seems to me that that idea is well worth following up. If national fleets could get into the habit of acting co-operatively, which it is intended should be their duty under international law in the future, it would not be a bad thing.
We have had to-day a most delightful, charming and sincere speech from the
hon. Baronet the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle). It was well worthy of an hon. Member for Portsmouth, but I am afraid it is not one with which I could to any very great extent agree. His speech has been dated by various hon. Members. I should say that it was a very attractive voice from the sixteenth century. It seemed to be quite out of touch with the realities of the present situation. The mere putting down of the Motion has had the effect of showing the cleavage between the opinion of what one might call, without offence, the "old brigade" in the Conservative party and the younger brigade. Immediately it appeared there followed an Amendment in the name of a number of the younger—and some of the older—members of the Conservative party, showing that they are very deeply divided from the idea of reliance on force and national armaments to secure the peace of the world, and putting forward the new idea of co-operative effort to obtain the security required under modern conditions. All the arguments of my hon. Friend were in opposition to the policy of the present Government, and in opposition to the policy of every Government in this country since the War. I cannot believe he will find a very wide body of opinion in the House to support him in a policy which is against that of the whole of the National Government and the great majority of Members in this House.
I suggest that the Government have the support of the House and the country in tie policy they are now pursuing, and that they might without fear go further than they actually have done, particularly on the naval side of their disarmament policy. The overwhelming body of opinion in the country is vastly ahead of the politicians. I want sincerely to congratulate the Government on the great advance they have made in disarmament policy since the declaration made by the Foreign Secretary at Geneva the other day. They have made a great advance in the direction of equality of status between Germany and the other Powers in the matter of big guns and air disarmament; but when we come to the naval part of the programme there are one or two comments I must make. I must read an extract from the speech of the Foreign Secretary at Geneva, where he said:
His Majesty's Government are at present engaged in seeking agreement with the leading naval Powers for substantial reduction in the size of the capital ship, and the principle of according to Germany equality of rights demands that Germany should be permitted to build ships of a type similar to that upon which the great naval Powers shall finally agree. Exhaustive investigation has shown that the arbitrary figure of 10,000 tons as the limit of a capital ship would fail to command general acceptance.
I would like to ask who it is that is objecting to 10,000 tons as a limit of a battleship I think we are entitled to know. I do not think it can be the United States of America. There is every reason to believe the United States would not oppose it. Is it Japan It may well be that it is Japan. Is it this country? Have we ever seriously proposed that 10,000 tons should be the limit? We are entitled to know whether the Government have actually put forward that proposal. The second MacDonald Government did, I understand, make the proposal that we should, by non-replacement, come down to a level of 10,000 tons. Is that still our policy? Do we now propose that that limit ought to be exceeded.
I understand that since the building some years ago of the "Nelson" and the "Rodney" no battleships in excess of 10,000 tons have been built anywhere in the world.. It is true that the French Government have recently started a 25,000-ton battleship, "Dunkerque" in reply to the German pocket battleship "Deutschland," and no doubt that is regrettable, but the reason for that is very largely our own, because we have been adhering to the policy of the big battleship the Admiralty have always maintained. If we had been willing before now to make clear to the world that we were prepared to come down to the limit imposed upon Germany, there would have been no reason to think that that battleship started by France would have been begun. It must be remembered that the German Government actually expressed their willingness to sacrifice the "Deutschland," their pocket battleship, in return for concessions made by the other naval Powers, and it is very regrettable that no serious notice was taken of that proposal made by the German Government. Whether the proposal would be made by the present German Government is another matter, but a
great opportunity was then missed. Under the policy of the present Government, it would be practicable to offer to Germany to build one battleship, or possibly two battleships, of 25,000 tons. That is what I read in the statement of Government policy. That is a very dangerous situation. If you allow that, you inevitably create suspicion and fear among other nations, and you are going to start a race in big battleships once more, and in battleships of 25,000 tons, without getting rid of the race in 10,000 ton battleships.
The right way to deal with this question is the way the Government have dealt with another side of this same disarmament question. On page 5 of Command Paper 4189, the statement dealing with land armaments uses these words:
LARGE MOBILE LAND GUNS …The obvious way of according Germany equality of treatment in regard to this weapon, While at the same time making a great advance in disarmament, is to press for a general reduction to this figure.
That is very sound and very wise as regards mobile land guns. Why not apply exactly the same principle to battleships in excess of 10,000 tons? That is the real answer and solution of this problem.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this country should build a number of battleships of under 10,000 tons?

Mr. MANDER: No, certainly not. I am suggesting that the policy of the Government at the Disarmament Conference should be based upon limiting the size of battleships to 10,000 tons, the figure imposed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. By doing that, we are doing exactly what we propose to do with Germany in respect of large mobile land artillery.
Some reference has been made in the Debate, by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) in his admirable speech, to the question of submarines. We have again reiterated our desire to abolish them altogether. I am sure that the proposals were put forward, as ever, in perfect sincerity, but, looked at from the point of view of foreigners, they are inclined to give rise to the idea that there is a certain amount of cynical hypocrisy in them. I know that there
is not, but that we should suggest the suppression of things, which above all others, we want to see suppressed, and should propose the retention of things that we want to see retained, is what gives rise to that impression. To get the suppression of submarines, we shall have to make concessions, in particular to France, with her more than 100,000 tons of submarines. We cannot get rid of them without bargaining, or, if you like, buying concessions, and coming down to a lower limit of battleships, as has already been proposed.
This matter affects very closely the subject of the American debt. The Americans always use this argument, and there is no answer to it: "If you people in Europe can go on spending £600,000,000 a year"—or whatever it may be—" on armaments that you pledged yourselves never to use, you can jolly well afford to pay the debts you owe to America." The two are linked together in the minds of the American people.

Mr. CHURCHILL: How would the hon. Member propose to pay the American debt apart from the difficulty of transferring money across the exchange?

Mr. MANDER: I know that there is that side of it, but I am referring to what is perfectly well known. There is in the minds of American people, who have so many queer and, I think, unsound ideas about the payment of debts, the feeling—and there is no denying it—that if we can afford to spend all that money on armaments we can afford to pay them. You may think that it is an irrational idea, but it is there, and it has to be taken into consideration. There is no way of securing greater economies than by tackling the big battleships. We have been told that big battleships cost at the very least £6,000,000. What could we get for £6,000,000 if by international agreement we could cut down the size of the battleships? In exchange for £1,000,000 we could build 50 hospitals. With another £1,000,000 we could have 50 miles of arterial roads; with another £1,000,000, 100 miles of country roads; with another £1,000,000, 100 recreation grounds; with another £1,000,000, 100 schools, and with the last £1,000,000 we could have 1,000 houses. In addition to that, we should obtain something of infinitely greater
value. We should have greater security and safety for the people in this country because the size of the armaments in all countries would have been reduced to a very much lower level.
I, therefore, urge the Government to go forward with their progressive policy of disarmament, which commands the overwhelming support of this House and of the country. They can feel, from what has been said in the Debate to-night, that they would have behind them a very large body of support in going still further on the question of the Navy. By promising equality of arms to Germany, they have, by implication, admitted that circumstances might arise in which they would come down to the 10,000-ton limit. I hope that they are not going to rule that out. Naturally, they cannot say a great deal about it to-night, but I urge them to go forward in that direction, taking the small risk—there is a risk about everything which any one does in life—which may be involved, in order to avoid a much greater and inevitable risk of a disastrous and cruel war.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) upon introducing his Motion, and doing so in a speech of great sincerity. I trust that the Motion will be accepted by the Government. I do not wish to delay the House by supporting in detail the case which he has made. I would rather say a few words about some of the lines of argument advanced by those who have opposed him. The arguments to which we have listened this afternoon have been, in part, arguments of pacifism, and, in part, arguments of pacifism posing as technical expertise. There are the genuine pacifists, and the pacifists who pose as authorities on technical questions of naval and military policy. I know perfectly well that on this question of the size of battleships there are authorities of great distinction who take the view that you can reduce the battleship, or the largest warship made, down to 10,000 tons. The arguments for and against the large or the small warship have been presented to myself, as to other First Lords of the Admiralty, and to those responsible for dealing with this matter in many countries. The balance was such as to
convince, the responsible people that, while some measure of reduction on present sizes is possible, the conditions which are required in the naval warship to hold its own against the various forms of attack with which it may be confronted, and to form the core and centre of battle, make it very difficult to reduce the size far beyond the figures which we have put forward.
The hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Lieut.-Commander Bower) suggested that big warships could never go to any distance. I remember one instance in the Great War, when the dispatch of our two battle cruisers to the Falkland Islands altered the whole course of history. It would have been very different had we had no vessels comparable to them in size, endurance power, gunnery and speed. It would require a great deal of argument to convince me that the technical case advanced by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was overwhelming. We know that it is not actually the case that the United States or Japan have the slightest intention to accept, and I think that there is a certain lack of real honesty in putting such a case ourselves. The hon. Member for West Leeds went further in his technical exposition of the kind of armaments which he prefers, or thinks are more effective, when he suggested that the Navy had been made obsolete by the discovery of flying. Of course the introduction of aerial warfare affects every form of war, and affects naval war particularly in narrow waters. Because, under certain particular conditions, two obsolete, stationary, undefended, American warships were destroyed by bombs from the air, that is very far from being prepared to accept the argument that the Navy has ceased to have any value. A sedentary man at short-range can be shot with a rifle; that does not prove that one or two bullets are sufficient to kill every man in the case of a great war.
If I might again go back to my parallel of the Falkland Islands: In that conflict, our two immensely superior battle-cruisers, with every advantage of speed, range and everything that made for the rapid destruction of a superior enemy, fired off 500 shells, weighing over half a ton each, before they sank the German
ship. I do not believe that in similar conditions an aeroplane would be any more successful than a battleship in hitting a ship in motion. Even in present conditions where would we get aeroplanes in sufficient number and of sufficient range to carry 200 or 300 tons of high explosive to the Falklands? Whatever advantage the aeroplane may have in the neighbourhood of land, the wide ocean will for long remain the charge of the Navy. As a mere matter of technical efficiency, it is worth while remembering that the problems of war are essentially problems of transport—are essentially problems of how much defensive and offensive power, which always means weight, can be transported at a certain speed for a certain distance. The aeroplane has the advantage of speed, but in every other respect it is at the greatest disadvantage compared with other forms of transport, because of the immense amount of power required to keep it in the air. The surface of the water is the cheapest means of transport for commerce, and it remains, for all longdistance purposes, the cheapest and most effective means of transporting fighting power. Therefore, I believe that, as far as technical arguments go, we are still a very long way from the supersession of either the moderate-sized battleship or the naval warship.
After all, what is the object, really, of all this parade of technical argument? That is not the intention of the hon. Members who have advanced it. Their intention is, as far as they can, to do away with the Navy altogether. One of their arguments, at any rate, is that, Germany having been reduced to a 10,000-ton standard, we are bound by the Treaty of Versailles to come to the same position. I believe, however, that there is no basis of justification in the Treaty of Versailles for saying that, as regards either quantity or quality, we are compelled to reduce to the German level—and if we were compelled to do so in regard to the one, logically we should be compelled to do so in regard to the other. If that were done, it is certain that the very next step would be the resumption of military activity by Germany to re-cover territories of which she believes herself to have been wrongfully deprived.
We are told that all this is out of date, that my hon. Friend is a Victorian, that
a new era has opened. It is true that we are living in an era rather different from that of the later years of Queen Victoria's reign, but it is an era much like the 20 years preceding Queen Victoria's reign. Then, too, we had the terrible exhaustion that followed a long-drawn-out war; we had an enthusiastic, rather woolly-minded potentate conceiving the idea that you can maintain perpetual peace and the status quo together in the interests of the victors; and we had other Powers wishing to conciliate that powerful potentate, the Tzar Alexander, with their tongue in their cheek, subscribing to a great scheme, the Holy Alliance, for maintaining the peace of the world. We know perfectly well how that scheme, with all its insincerities, and with its denial of progress, movement and change in the world, was bound to break down. It certainly did not preserve the peace of the world, and I doubt very much whether the schemes invented at the close of the Great War for perpetuating peace by the maintenance of the status quo—and there is no other scheme before the world to-day—are going to be much more successful in maintaining the peace of the world. I think we should do well to keep a very watchful and critical eye upon these developments before we trust to a yet unborn scheme for the maintenance of world peace and for the security of this country and the Empire. By all means let us play our part with others in such a measure of disarmament as will conduce to economy, and possibly to the removal of suspicion, but do not let us be misled either by the idea that disarmament of itself will make any serious contribution to the cause of peace, or that a new world order has arisen in which some international scheme of government makes us free of that responsibility which has always been ours, and will long be ours, of maintaining our own security as a nation and as an Empire.

6.50 p.m.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I warmly welcome the opportunity which has been given to me to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle), who moved this Motion, and who introduced into his speech so many happy poetical quotations. He has given me the opportunity of explaining the policy
of His Majesty's Government in regard to the reduction and limitation of naval armaments. This question of naval armaments is one of paramount importance to everybody in this country, and, unfortunately, but I think inevitably, there is a great deal of misconception about it. For a year I have been steeped in this question of disarmament, and even I find it bard to keep up to date with the intricacies that come from a Disarmament Conference composed of representatives of 64 different nations. Therefore, I am very glad to have this opportunity, which I am going to take to-night, of explaining what we have already done and what we propose to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Portsmouth, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden), and one or two other Members who have spoken, have expressed some anxiety about our present position. They talk of the year 1936 arriving and of our finding ourselves with certain old cruisers, old destroyers, and old submarines. That is perfectly true. We are limited in tonnage in all of these three categories; we may have a certain tonnage by dm end of 1936. In cruiser tonnage we are building up to the limit allowed; in destroyers and submarines we are not. We are readily facing the position of having some of these ships over age in 1936, because we think it is even more important to have a steady replacement programme. Then everybody knows where they are in this country and in other countries, and we do not suffer from a sudden bump in armaments, as we are suffering now, and finding difficulties in consequence. Therefore, we are deliberately taking this risk, if anyone likes so to call it, because of what we think will be the very great advantage of a steady replacement programme.
I would say, however, to all of my hon. Friends who have expressed anxiety as to the present, that we must realise that until the end of 1936 we are absolutely bound, as regards the type and number of the ships that we build, by the Treaty of Washington and by the London Naval Treaty, and those numbers cannot be increased unless we put into operation a clause in the London Naval Treaty called the Escalator Clause. That is a very valuable feature, because its effect would
be to enable us to make increases if any Power not a party to the London Naval Treaty should fail to come into line with the general programme of disarmament.
I am temporarily in charge of this great instrument, the Royal Navy, and it is a great responsibility for anyone to have. Bearing in mind that responsibility, it would be too much to ask any First Lord to say that he was perfectly satisfied and perfectly happy with the position, but I will say this: If, firstly, we take into consideration the Escalator Clause, and if, secondly—and this, to my mind, is the important thing—we are allowed steadily to pursue the replacement programme that we have been pursuing since 1930, I say with perfect frankness to the House and to my hon. Friends who have spoken that I do not think they need feel any undue alarm at the present position. I do not think they need feel any undue alarm that the British Navy will not be able to carry out its proper functions.
What does alarm me is the persistent and, I think, pernicious propaganda that is being carried on against the Navy. For the last year that propaganda has been designed always to put this country in the wrong; it has been designed to create and foster an impression that we have been, and still are, standing in the way of disarmament. We have not heard much of that to-day in this Debate, and certainly not from any of the hon. Members opposite. The only hon. Member who came near to it was the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), and even he did not come anywhere near to the sort of thing that has been said in some quarters. I would not so much mind what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said, but, unfortunately, I see that many excellent people in this country are beginning to believe what is being said in other quarters, and I propose, first, to give a few facts to the House of Commons to show that this charge that England is the Power standing in the way of disarmament is one of the most preposterous charges that could ever be made; and, secondly, to prove abundantly by figures that this country has given the most magnificent lead to the world. Before doing so, may I briefly state the necessity for this country to have a Navy of a certain size and strength? I believe that the need for a
Navy is bred in the bone of the people of this country. But we have been going through what some super-cynic once called "the piping times of peace" for the last 14 years, people are hard up, a great deal of propaganda is being made against the Navy, and some people are apt to forget, but I think that, for their own good, we ought not to allow, the people of this country to forget, certain facts.
The first thing that they must never forget is that their livelihood and the food that they eat are dependent on seaborne commerce. No merchandise, and no food, can come into this country in any other way than by ships, and no country in the world is in a similar position. Every day there come into our ports 110,000 tons of merchandise and 50,000 tons of food. These goods come from all over the world, from the remotest parts—over 80,000 miles of sea routes—and, unless we can secure the safe arrival of this merchandise and food, we starve. The second thing this country must not forget is that our Empire has been built up under the protection of the British Navy. A considerable proportion of the people of this world look to this country of ours for their protection. They look to us to maintain that protection and, should we fail to do so, there is no doubt whasoever that the Empire will come to an end, with whatever consequences that would entail. There is something much worse than that. What would happen if we suddenly saw the disruption of the most stable part of the world, for the Commonwealth of British Nations is the most stable element in the world to-day, and the biggest guarantee of peace, in my opinion. If that became disrupted, I believe that the shattering effect upon the already overstrained world might really be the end of civilisation.
I do not think hon. Members have exaggerated what our Navy does in peace. I think the British Navy has now come to be looked upon as the helper and protector of mankind in trouble all over the world. We have at the present moment 36 cruisers in commission—only 36 cruisers at the present moment. Twenty-nine of these vessels are abroad. I can assure the House that we are finding the very greatest difficulty in answering the demands to send a British
cruiser which is continually arising from distressed or perplexed places on the globe. In the last 18 months we have been called upon to send cruisers no less than 18 times in cases of dire necessity, and, if you talk to the representatives of other countries, as I. have had great opportunity of doing at Geneva, you will find that nearly every other country in the world will most freely admit that they do not want to see our Navy cut down and made impotent to carry out, among other things, this great duty to humanity in general. For these reasons, and for others which I will not enter into now, I say that we must have an adequate Navy, and I do not say more. I use the word "adequate" advisedly, because nobody has been more anxious and willing than the Board of Admiralty all through the history of these treaties and negotiations to lighten the burden of naval armament as much as we possibly can.
The Member for East Wolverhampton spoke as if we had not done enough. In fact, we have given a most striking lead, which in many cases has not been followed, to the world in disarmament. I can give it to the House in a few figures, I think. The strength of the British Navy in comparison with the year before the War will have been reduced, by figures which we arrive at in 1936 by the London Naval Treaty, as follows—Battleships from 69 to 15; cruisers from 108 to 50; destroyers from 285 to 117; submarines from 74 to 38. If we take tonnage, the total tonnage of our Fleet in 1914—I give round figures—was 2,160,000 tons. The tonnage in December, 1936, will be 1,151,000 tons. if we compare that with the other great naval Powers we find that the total tonnage of the United States of America in 1914 was 881,000 tons. Under the London Naval Treaty the United States of America's tonnage at the end of 1936 may be 1,139,000. The total tonnage of Japan's Fleet in 1914 was 522,000 tons. Under the London Naval Treaty, Japan's tonnage at the end of 1936 may be 720,000. It will thus be seen that by the end of 1936 the tonnage of the British Empire will have been decreased 47 per cent.; that of the United States of America may have been increased by 29 per cent., and that of Japan by 37 per cent.
In face of these facts, I suggest that it is not only stupid, but unchristian, to say that we have not made enormous efforts. Indeed, I suggest that to say, in view of these figures, that we have stood in the way, and blocked the way, is dishonest and, what is more, it is grossly unfair to the Board of Admiralty. I read in publications, I do not want to quote them, things about soldiers and sailors that never should be said. I can assure the House that not only this Board of Admiralty but all preceding Boards of Admiralty, as my hon. Friend opposite will bear me out, have always had the most sincere desire to economise in every possible way and to cut our Navy to the utmost limit, compatible with their great responsibilities.
I now give the proposals for further reduction. So far I have dealt with the past, and brought up to date the position. We are to-day bound by the Treaties of Washington and the London Naval Treaty. I now want to explain to the House what we are prepared to do in the future towards further reduction and limitation. Here I can at once put the mind of the Mover of this Resolution at rest. In the last part of the Resolution it is asked that we should have no further unilateral reduction unless this further reduction has been accepted by everybody. There will be no further unilateral reduction. Referring once more to this propaganda, I receive thousands of letters, some of which I must say I am very pleased a considerate secretariat do not show to me, from various organisations urging the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Government, to adopt anybody's plan but our own plan. I am convinced after a great deal of study of this question, that our plan is by far the best plan put forward, and it is the best plan because it is eminently practicable. It is thoroughly economic, and it has got much the best chance of being adopted by everybody all round. I have tried to show the House that our requirements, and our responsibilities, are unique among the nations of the world, and what we have done under the Washington and London Naval Treaties. We have already made our cut down to the limit in battleships and cruisers.
Our further proposals aim at a reduction in the size of our ships, and a reduc-
tion in the calibre of our guns, because our experience has been, beyond any doubt, that the great cost of these has come about entirely with the enormous ships, and enormous guns, which have been built by all nations in the past few years. Let me give our proposals about battleships. There have been many interesting speeches on that subject to-day. Our plan for dealing with the battleship—although one might not think it from the people urging me to adopt somebody else's plan—effects much bigger economies than the plan of anybody else. We wish to reduce the 35,000-ton ship with 16-inch guns, under certain conditions, to 22,000 tons. I say under certain conditions. We calculate that the smaller ship would cost about half of the greater, and it is quite easy to see that the 15 smaller ships we want will cost far less than 10 larger ones.
I see that, in connection with battleships, several Members have put their names to an Amendment to the Resolution urging the Government when replacing battleships to replace them by ships of 10,000 tons. I see also that the phraseology points out that that must be done by international agreement. None of the Members who have put their names to that Amendment wishes to do it without it being followed by all the other nations of the world. My first observation on that is that we are taking the lead in the world in trying to reduce the size of these ships. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton asked what other countries are reluctant to come down as low. Practically all of them, and I can assure him that we are in the lead in trying to get down to 22,000 tons.
I might leave the Amendment there, because it is obvious that we could not have 10,000-ton ships if we failed to get down to 22,000, but I should not be frank with the House unless I said, as has been said in the latest White Paper, that the 10,000-ton ship is not only unacceptable to us but would also fail to command general acceptance. In the opinion of the Admiralty, the 10,000-ton ship, for many technical reasons which I will not bore the House with now—it would take a very long time—would produce a ship quite incapable of fulfilling the functions of a battleship. The hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) said he thought technical opinion in the Navy was about evenly divided. I can assure the House
that the hon. Member is wrong, and I should say that what I have just said would be endorsed by 99 per cent. of naval officers. I cannot help thinking that the demand that is now going about for the 10,000-ton battleship is based on the wish for economy. I can assure hon. Members that that theory is entirely wrong. Our principal duty is to protect our trade routes. If every nation is limited to ships—I will not call them battleships—of 10,000 tons, all nations will have them, and if we had to meet any possible hostile concentration of those ships in any part of the world, we should have to have so many 10,000-ton ships that the cost of the Navy would be greatly increased instead of decreased. I say, on the very well considered opinion of the naval staff, that it would not decrease expenditure but would result in a very big increase.
After that digression, I will turn to our plan. I have dealt with battleships. Next, we want to cut out two categories of ships altogether. We want to cut out the big 8-inch cruisers altogether, and we wish to cut out the submarine, and, if we should be successful in cutting out the submarine, we are quite ready to cut down the number of destroyers, but of course that depends absolutely on all nations adopting the same plan. We wish to reduce the size of the cruiser to about 7,000 tons with 6-inch guns. We want this small tonnage lightly armed because we want a great number of cruisers to protect these thousands of miles of trade routes. No one can call that an aggressive weapon. It is essentially a weapon of defence, capable of defending our trade routes against any commerce destroyers that may appear. One of the most interesting things about our plan for reduction is that the types of ship that we seek to have almost exactly approximate to the types of ships allowed to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. As all the world knows, one of the big problems at the moment is to get Germany back to Geneva, and our plan is going a very long way to help to bring that about—for without Germany a Disarmament Conference is no good at all.
I now want to come to the question of personnel. I have kept it for the end, because it does not deal with treaties at all. The number of men that we have in the Service is not governed by treaties.
It is purely a domestic matter, and it is purely in the hands of this House of Commons and no one else. I want to say to the House, again very frankly, that I am apprehensive and worried about the number of men that we have in the Service. In introducing the Navy Estimates last March, I said that of all the trouble that I saw in the Service, the worst trouble we had to face, and the thing we muss try to correct, was that of having too few men. It is obvious that for manning the Fleet in peace time you want more men than will actually be in the ships. You must have a good many spares. You must have them for courses of instruction, for foreign service leave, for sickness, and, perhaps even more important, for crossing relief crews, and these extra men who are wanted beyond the duty of actually manning the ships in peace time are called the pool. The pool has always been a very vulnerable thing for economy committees and people who are looking round for something to cut down. They say: "What are these men? They are not wanted. Cut them clown." That has been going on year after year until, in fact, the pool has been cut down a great deal too much.
Theoretically, it is sufficient, but theory does not always go hand in hand with practice, and in practice it is all wrong. For instance, if relief crews taking men out to China could arrive there instantaneously and simultaneously at the time the men who were coming back from China could arrive at Portsmouth, it would be all right. For many reasons like that we find that things are very much all wrong, due entirely to the shortage of numbers. The result of that, although it may sound a small thing, to my mind is the most serious thing in the Navy. It results in frequent changes made in all ships of the Navy, both at home and abroad, and it is most difficult for any ship's company under present conditions to settle down. I have figures for a typical battleship and a typical cruiser in the last six months, and I have asked how many changes there have been in personnel. In the battleship there have been about 21 per cent. and in the cruiser 25 per cent. of men shifted in the last six months. I hope the House will see, especially those who have been accustomed to the working of the regimental feeling and the knowledge of how you can settle down in your regiment and work
together, how almost impossible it is for a ship to get together, for the men to know each other and for officers and men to know each other. It must result in a very great loss of efficiency in every ship in the Service.
Another great disadvantage is that men nowadays are frequently failing to get a settled period at home after foreign service. The Naval Service is not an easy one. It is a hard life. Men go abroad for a long time. They come back and appreciate a settled period at home. Now they cannot always get it, and, what is even worse, it is almost impossible at the present moment to do away altogether with inequalities of treatment. I am sure the House will see how bad that must be for any service. I called attention to this last March. We have been trying very hard to put it right. We have taken certain steps. We have altered the proportion of home and foreign service. We have brought ships back from the Mediterranean and increased the number at home. We have also altered the proportion between shore and sea service. We have done that by paying off some of the big ships and putting them in reserve. But, as I foreshadowed last March, that is not a complete solution. I am afraid the only real solution is an increase in Fleet numbers. I attach the very greatest importance to this, and I regard it as the key to the just treatment of our sailors and the proper efficiency of our Fleet. I have always maintained that the personnel of the Fleet is by far the most important, and it is the duty of the House, and I think it will be the privilege of the House, to look after the personnel and see that they get a fair show. If you neglect the personnel and their proper training, you will only produce in the long run a robot fleet without a soul and if, unhappily, we ever come to that, no amount of tons and no amount of guns will ever make the British Navy a certain shield for this country.

Sir B. FALLE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's satisfactory statement—more satisfactory than I hoped—I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. COCKS: In view of the statement we have just heard, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. RAIKES: I beg to move,
That this House is of opinion that a reform of the Second Chamber, both as regards its powers and its composition, is a matter of vital public importance which should be dealt with without delay.
7.30 p.m.
I rise to propose this Motion most wholeheartedly in the belief that the present National Government will be prepared to show courage in tackling this problem which no Government has shown for the last 20 years. The issue which we have to face to-day is an issue between single-chamber government and double-chamber government. That is the problem. When, 20 years ago, the Parliament Act was passed, its framers themselves never contemplated a system under which for ever we were to have, literally speaking, one all-powerful House and a second House that really had no tangible power whatever. The whole history of our own Constitution and the whole of the experience of other countries show one thing to be perfectly clear beyond all else, that a revising chamber is definitely necessary if the hasty legislation passed by Parliamentary majorities which are in only for a short time, is to be checked and referred back to the people who are the final judge. The Socialist party have shown quite clearly to-day by the Amendment which they have tabled, that as far as they are concerned they believe definitely in single-chamber government. I can appreciate their point of view. I am opposed to it. We have to consider the country as a whole and the Members of this House who do not believe in single-chamber government but who have been prepared during easy times to drift onward believing that the time would never come when there would be a definite revolutionary Government with a majority on which there could be no check.
While asking the Government to deal with this problem and to tackle it boldly, I should like to deal briefly with one or two points in regard, both to what the restored powers of this House should be,
and to the composition of the restored House, if composition on restoration takes place. I am debarred from dealing in detail with the question of finance which comes, of course, to be discussed on a private Bill at a later stage, but I can say that no scheme which has been proposed by any body of persons suggests in any way that the substantial control of Parliament over revenue should be touched so long as that legislation, whatever it may be, is primarily revenue legislation. When we go beyond that, we come to a very wide question. We come to the question of how the new House shall deal with ordinary legislation. To-day, supposing any Government were to propose and were to carry in this House a Measure such as the abolition of the second chamber itself, they could, without any reference to the people and without the question ever being raised in the election issue, within two years revert definitely to what actually was single-chamber government. Not only that, any legislation which you could consider or think of, legislation of which the electors had never dreamed, could never be held up and could never be referred back.
I say most definitely that, if the Government are to tackle this problem, they should, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my friends, lay it down that a constituted second chamber should have the power to refer back hasty and ill-considered legislation to a General Election before such legislation can become law. Certain safeguards ought to be made regarding that matter. Perhaps if you had a limited House, it might be laid down, to make quite certain, that merely important Measures were dealt with, that not simply the majority vote in the Second Chamber against legislation could refer it back to a General Election, but that it might have to be a majority of the whole Second Chamber provided the Second Chamber was of a reasonable size. I know that it will be said by my hon. Friends: "Oh, yes, if you are going to do that and give power to a second chamber to refer back legislation to a General Election you will never have any anti-Conservative legislation passed at all." I know that that point will be put up. I suggest that the answer is a very simple one. A reconstituted chamber would be very careful. If it had any desire to maintain its own prestige, it would be
very careful not to refer back to a General Election legislation on which the electors appeared likely to support the Government in the House below and not the chamber which sent it back for consideration. If they were foolish enough to be obstructive in that way, not only would the prestige of the second chamber go, but they would be paving the way for the abolition of their chamber as it stood. They would be careful undoubtedly. In past days before 1911 legislation time after time was referred back, and, when the election came, the people showed that their view was the view of the upper chamber, rightly or wrongly, and not the view of the existing Government. You will get that again.
We come to a. further point. If you are to deal with the question of the power to refer back legislation to the electors for their consideration, the question of the composition of the new Second Chamber at once arises. It is extraordinarily necessary in the interests of both Houses that the Second Chamber should be a limited chamber in order that we can get away from the old swamping practice which is not only degrading to the Second Chamber itself but degrading to this House. After all if your second chamber is to have any power at all, it is an iniquitous thing that that which appears to be a power, should be thrown into jeopardy by a Government constantly announcing that it can create new peers. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) is, I believe, going to deal with the question of swamping when he seconds this Motion, so I will not say any more on that matter.
I now come to the real difficulty which, time after time, has divided the Conservative party—I say it deliberately—in this House in the past—the question of composition. We have to bear in mind that it would be fatal to the Second Chamber to make it a mere replica of this House. If we did that it would have no power. It would merely lead to friction, and it would have no prestige whatever in our Constitution. So we have to bear that point in mind. We have further to bear in mind that the object and functions of a second chamber are totally different from the functions of a. legislative chamber. It is a revising chamber and one which requires different
qualities from those which are needed for the initiation of legislation. It is a chamber which requires fairness of outlook, and it must be, at any rate, in its best sense conservative, and not revolutionary. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I thought that my hon. Friends would smile, and I propose in a moment or two to deal with a certain argument which they will raise against my suggested composition on those lines.
For the moment, I want to deal with that which is of vital importance, namely, the question of the hereditary principle. You have, I submit, two alternatives, either to abolish the whole hereditary principle, which, I say deliberately, would be fatal to the prestige of the new chamber, or you have to have a really substantial hereditary element in that chamber. If you try to compromise, and simply put in a few hereditary peers just to gild the pill, you get all the worst elements of both systems. You will lose your prestige and gain no real power by so doing. I propose saying a word or two on why many of us hold that the hereditary principle is defensible and can be defended most strongly both on the platform outside and in this House. In the first instance, provided you have a limited number of hereditary peers and a limited House, and provided your limited number of hereditary peers are selected by the peers as a whole, you will have the best of the bunch and the pick of the order of the peers. There are very few on any benches who would deny that those who sit regularly in the Second Chamber do their job very efficiently and well. If that is so, surely for, at any rate, part of your chamber it is very advisable to have the pick of those men continuing to sit. As a Conservative, I much prefer to take up a thing which works well in practice than to be led away into some mere paper, theoretical scheme which may have no effect whatever and may work all wrong.
There are further reasons which can be adduced for a substantial hereditary element. You must have some form of traditional continuity if your new House is to maintain its prestige at all. After all, the Upper Chamber has a certain revising atmosphere about it. It has men in it who have a certain inherited sense of judicial fairness and of revising
legislation. Very often hon. Members who are far from being Conservative stand up and speak most strongly in favour of the traditions and privileges of this House, and they do it because they realise that the traditions of this House are a very great part of it. Suppose that this House were to be reformed on an entirely different basis, it would lose, simply from the fact that it had broken from its traditions and come on to something new, a tremendous amount of its prestige, and I suggest that it would lose a considerable amount of its power for legislative purposes. That applies also, I maintain, to the upper House. I say in all sincerity that you cannot define atmosphere. It cannot be done. But the intangible things of life are very often important and mean the most in the long run, and if you have a real traditional element running through your Constitution it not only makes your Constitution favoured in the eyes of the people but it makes it work.
There is another point in that connection upon which I wish to say a word. You have a certain inherited tradition of public service in the Second Chamber. In a material age and at a time when we hear so much about the lust for profit and the lust for advancement, it is not at all a bad thing to embody anew in your Constitution the idea that high position and responsibility demand active service for the State. Undoubtedly, if you embody the spirit of service you are embodying something which cannot be bought with money and which often cannot be obtained by practice. You are embodying something which in many instances, is a traditional feature. It is a peculiar attribute of the hereditary system that it does produce those traditional features of fairness and broadness of vision which you do not always get in all elected assemblies.
There is only one further point upon that matter with which I should like to deal. It is a point which I know will be raised by same of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. It is all very well to talk about heredity, but you will never get, we shall be told, the people of this country to accept any strong second chamber which has an hereditary flavour about it at all. I agree that the people of this country are very averse to having, as their actual techni-
cal rulers, certain persons who have shown themselves by their public actions unworthy of respect and credit, but I have never discovered in the country, wherever I have been, any objection to the best elements in the hereditary system playing their part in the government of this country. Leaders in the Labour party cry out against the present system and the present Peerage, but their rank and file in the country do not dislike the present Peerage qua Peers; they dislike them because they are Conservatives. We should have just the same objection raised by my hon. Friends to any House of Lords if that House had anything in the nature of an anti-Socialist majority. They would not welcome them any more warmly because they happened to have been appointed in some other way.
I have dealt at some length with the hereditary side because it is the side which has appealed a good deal to a number of my hon. Friends who have been working with me on this matter, and I think that the case for the retention of a substantial element of the hereditary side, say, one-half of the new House, should be very carefully considered by the Government. In regard to the outside elements, I do not propose to say very much. It is possible that the Government may decide that some form of an elective element for the other Members should be adopted. The suggestion has been put forward by the committee of which I am a member that the outside element might be elected by means of the county councils. The advantage of that would be that there would be geographical representation in the new House, and in those parts of the country, particularly in the north, where Socialist opinion is strong. Socialist opinion would be represented in the new House.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Also through the county boroughs.

Mr. RAIKES: Yes, and by means of the county boroughs, so that that element would be even more represented. Those are the arguments in favour of the suggestion. It is, of course, an objection to any form of elective principle that an elected House or an elected Senate are not always ideal when they have to face unpopularity and when they have to face a delicate situation. There are hon. Mem-
bers who would prefer to see the outside element a nominated element. That is an idea which has a good deal to support it and a good deal of fairness to recommend it. The only difficulty in regard to the nominated element is who, in the first instance, is to nominate? It is perfectly easy, once you get nomination and as the nominated members fall out, for the Prime Minister of the day to appoint the successors, and by the law of averages you would get the thing working out pretty fairly. But who, in the first instance, is to select the large number, 150, who might have to be nominated? My hon. Friends and myself are not wedded to any particular scheme, but we have suggested in a recent report that the Privy Council would be a fair body to select the first batch of nominated Peers. It was rather interesting when we studied the matter to discover that there were more Privy Councillors outside the Peers—of course, Privy Councillors who were Peers would take no part in the nomination—who were ex-Members of the House of Commons and who were not members of the Conservative party than were members of the Conservative party. Therefore, it is probable that both Liberal and Socialist elements would get considerable fairness from that method of election.
However much hon. Members may think that we who press this question are die-hard Tories, we realise perfectly well that you do want a bigger representation of the Opposition in the Second Chamber, but we maintain at the same time that by the very nature of the Second Chamber, by its judicial and revising capacity, it must not be a chamber likely to be subject to the violent swings of popular opinion. It must not be a chamber likely to have anything in the nature of a revolutionary majority but must be a chamber which puts the brakes on the wheels and not one which shoves the car along faster. Various tentative suggestions have been put forward to the Government on behalf of the Committee of which I was a humble Member. We do, not suggest that these suggestions are the last thing, but they are our unanimous conclusions. We sunk our common differences, and our differences were varied, because we wanted to see something done, and we ask this House and the Government to sink their differences and to devise a scheme in this Parliament which will
work, and do something to check the folly of drift which we have had for so long. The old Latin tag: "Finis coronat opus" (The end crowns the work) is as true to-day as ever it was, and I ask this Government and this House to go forth with determination to conquer the difficulties that lie before them in achieving their policy and, finally, to bring it within a very short period to a successful and glorious conclusion.

7.52 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I beg to second the Motion.
As long as I can recall, I can remember discussions about the House of Lords. One recalls the Peer's song in "Iolanthe" which, in a jolly way, declares that:
The House of Peers, throughout the war,
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well.
One recalls also what happened in 1911 and the trouble which occurred, which roused everybody on all sides to a great state of fury. We have had various inquiries from time to time, commissions have reported and schemes have been put forward, but nothing has transpired, and the matter now is being debated very much in the same way as it was 50 years ago. What are the complaints about the present House of Lords? They are twofold, first as regards the personnel, and secondly as regards power. The complaints about the personnel are that the House consists of a very considerable number of Members, over a thousand, something like 1,200, and only about 10 per cent. of them attend the proceedings. The rest of them simply use the honour as a social distinction.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: Not so large, 700.

Sir J. WITHERS: 700. In that case, the attendance is 20 per cent. On special occasions the Members of the House of Lords are known familiarly as backwoods men, who come to swamp everybody else, without any real knowledge of the question at issue. The next point is that nearly all the peers are of the same political opinion. Those are the two points upon which most objection is taken to the present constitution of the House of Lords. With regard to the powers of the House, I suggest that at the present time they are powerless. If
a strong Government comes in and passes a Measure three times in two years, it can become law against the will of the House of Lords. Therefore, really the House of Lords are powerless. They are powerless in another way, because the number of the House not being settled any Government in power could at any time appoint a large number of peers to swamp a hostile majority in the Lords. Recently the names of those selected for appointment in 1911 have been published in the Press. Therefore, the creation of peers is not an empty threat It was actually suggested in 1911. Those are the criticisms of the House of Lords as at present constituted.
Let us look to the other side of the picture. What ought the House of Lords to be? My suggestions are (1) that they ought to be an independent body containing all shades of political opinion, fairly represented, (2) that they should be much fewer in number, a workable number of something like 300 to 350, and that people who go there should understand that they are there for work and not merely for social distinction, and (3) that the numbers should be definitely ascertained so that there could be no swamping. What should the function of such a House be? Obviously, it should be a body to make the nation think twice of any serious change. With regard to ordinary business it would examine, revise and pass it, but on any very serious point of departure it might well give the nation an opportunity to reconsider the matter or, as we say, sleep over it. I should like to suggest, as has been suggested by the Mover of the Motion, that in a revised House they should have power by an absolute majority to compel a general election on a point of very great importance.
As regards financial powers, I do not think that anyone has suggested that the right of the Commons in ordinary financial matters should be interfered with. The only suggestion made is that that power should not be used for tacking on some political purpose not necessarily for the raising and expenditure of revenue. What are the alternatives (1) The House of Lords can remain as at present, (2) it can be abolished, or (3) it can be reformed. There is practically no difference between remaining as at present and being abolished, because
under the present law, as I have said, if any Government sends up a Measure three times in two years the thing is done. It is all very well to look at the matter from one point of view and say that the powers of the House of Lords will be used from only one party point of view, but it might be used from the point of view of all parties. It is just as serious a matter to my hon. Friends opposite as for moderate persons on our side. A strong Socialist Government might come in and bring forward some Measure which might upset the social order. That is one side.
I would ask hon. Members to consider what might be done by a Government such as we have now. They might seek to abolish the trade unions. In an extreme case, the politics of the world being what they are now, they might propose to establish a Fascist regime. That has been done in other countries, why not here. Therefore, it would be for the benefit of both sides and all parties that. the House of Lords should be reformed, to avoid violent changes which either side might suggest. All moderate men want reform of the House of Lords but, unfortunately, they have never been able to agree upon details. Everybody wishes that the House of Lords should be reformed and have said so for 50 years, but; no one has ever been able to agree how it is to be done.
A small number of presumptuous persons, of which I was one, lately put forward a report, and I would suggest that hon. Members might take the trouble to read it. I have received to-day a copy of a very nice little book entitled "House o f Lords or Senate?" written by two eminent Members of Parliament. That is quite a different proposal to our own, but, never mind, it is not for any particular body of persons to decide on the details. The Government in power must consider the various proposals, formulate their policy and bring it before this House. We earnestly beg the Government not to delay any longer. It is time the reform was undertaken, not only in the interests of our party, but in the interests of the party opposite. I hope that they will bring in a Bill this Session, and that there will be no more inquiries, but action. One thing the Government must remember, and that is that not only must it satisfy this House
and the House of Peers, because any Measure has to pass both Houses, but it must also satisfy the demands of the ordinary reasonable man in the street.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the second word "that" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
the House of Lords should be abolished.
8.1 p.m.
I am sure that I shall carry the whole House with me in paying a tribute to the speech of the Mover of the Motion. I commend him most heartily upon the way he has presented his case, and if his case could be won by enthusiasm I must confess that I should have been converted by the hon. Member but, unfortunately, it requires more than enthusiasm; meritorious as it may be. Let me make one point clear at the outset of my remarks. This issue has not been raised by us but, let it be observed, by the Conservative party. Whatever responsibility may rest upon anyone in relation to the ultimate issues that may supervene upon this discussion, the Conservative party must accept all the responsibility. We on this side of the House have little interest in raising such an issue, since the primary purpose of this Parliament above all others, in view of our social distress, is to apply its mind daily and hourly to the social and economic problems now before the country. Unfortunately we are precluded from devoting the next 2 hours to a consideration of that problem and are called upon to discuss the problem of the reform of the Second Chamber. The hon. Member has moved the Motion in definite terms; that this question of the reform of the Second Chamber:
is a matter of vital public importance which should be dealt with without delay.
What is the urgency? Why is it so necessary to proceed without delay? Why are we, in the beginning of the second Session of this Parliament, to put all other things on one aide and tackle this abstruse question of the reform of the Second Chamber? What is the hurry? Is there a dispute between the House of Lords and the Government? Is there a deadlock? Has the House of Lords suddenly come to life and defied the Government? Is there some conflict between the policy of the Government and the policy desired by the House of
Lords? What is the issue? What has created this tremendous necessity for action; and speedy action? Most of us are able to guess the reason. To-night we may be firing the first shot in a battle which may soon be joined, and no one is able to foretell what the reverberations of this first shot may be. It may well he that many institutions held dear by hon. Members opposite will be swept away. The responsibility for raising the issue rests upon their shoulders, not upon ours. Why is this issue raised to-night? I have already asked whether there is any conflict imminent between the House of Lords and the Government—

Sir J. WITHERS: We think it is much better that it should be dealt with at a time when there is no conflict.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Member, as usual, shows intelligent anticipation. Clearly he is in daily dread lest the House of Lords may suddenly go Bolshevik. Is this issue raised because supporters of the Government think that the Government are not carrying out their mandate on this particular problem? The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) is very fair in argument, and I am sure that he will not controvert this proposition, that whatever else was raised during the last election as a matter of mandate to the Government, this problem of the reform of the Second Chamber was not.

Sir J. WITHERS: indicated assent.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Member who agrees that there was no mandate in respect of this matter is urging the necessity for a revising chamber to prevent hasty legislation, and actually concluded his speech by demanding hasty legislation on the part of the Government on the reform of the House of Lords. He demanded immediate action; without a mandate from the people. What is the reason? The hon. Member and his friends know the reason. They are not quite sure, or perhaps I should say they are quite sure that their presence on those benches as a Government is not going to be unduly prolonged. There will come a time when we shall be able to go to the country and hon. Members opposite are not quite sure that the merits of their administration will produce so overwhelming a convic-
tion in the minds of the electors of the country as to return them to power after the next appeal. It may be that we shall have a Socialist majority next time, and the hon. Member and his friends are exceedingly anxious to avail themselves now, in good time, of their temporary and evanescent majority to dig themselves in politically behind the trenches at the other end of the corridor. It is quite clear, and easy to prove, that they are anxious to ham-string the next Labour Government before it enters upon office.
This is not the first attempt that has been made to arrive at some acceptable compromise for dealing with the reform of the House of Lords. Ever since 1910 the House of Lords and their political associates in the House of Commons have chafed under the restraint imposed upon them by the Parliament Act of 1910, and they have made up their minds that that restraint is to be removed as speedily as possible. The hon. Member who moved the Motion made no bones about it; he made it abundantly clear. He was much more candid than the more experienced hon. Member for Cambridge University. Since 1910 there have been four attempts. There was the Bryce Conference of 1917. That Conference failed to achieve unanimity, and the only thing which emerged from it was a letter written by Viscount Bryce to the Prime Minister of that day. Another attempt was made by the Coalition Government in 1922. Their proposals were laughed out of court. In 1925 the late Viscount Cave presented proposals very similar to those of 1922. The principal difference was that in 1922 the proposals were put forward officially on behalf of the Coalition Government but in 1925 they were put forward by Viscount Cave in his personal capacity.
Lastly we have; he present proposals which, for want of a better word, I will call the "Salisbury proposals." Even now there is no agreement. Many hon. Members have received a copy of another version written by two hon. Members of this House, both of whom, by the way, are at the moment Members of the Government. Let me refer to the main difference. The hon. Member who moved the Motion emphasised with tremendous conviction the necessity for safeguarding the hereditary principle in connection with a proportion of the members of the proposed Second Chamber, and that is
embodied in the proposals of the Committee over which Lord Salisbury presided. It would have been a little more helpful and more candid, by the way, if the Committee which drafted this Report had made it clear that the Committee was constituted not of Members of the House of Commons but of Conservative Members of the House of Commons. In their report the hereditary principle is emphasised to a certain degree—in regard to one-half of the proposed new chamber. What do their Conservative opponents say? On page 98 I read:
It is for this reason that those who genuinely believe in an effective system of bi-Cameral Government are convinced "—
this is the point—
that the total abolition of the hereditary element in the House of Lords is unavoidable, much as they might otherwise wish to retain it either in whole or in part.
Therefore one section of the Conservative party rejects the hereditary principle while another section, for whom the hon. Member who moved the Motion speaks, emphasises it very heartily, endorses the hereditary principle, and desires its retention. There is a split in the Tory party. If I were asked to state my own opinion I should say that I find considerable ground for agreement with the Resolution carried in this House in 1649. I am so devoted to tradition and that kind of thing that I like to find my views fortified by the views of our ancient predecessors in this House. This is what they said in 1649:
The House of Peers in Parliament is useless, dangerous and ought to be abolished.
I am not arguing against any second chamber. My Amendment concerns only the House of Lords. No second chamber such as is proposed, and certainly not the present Second Chamber, could be acceptable to a democratic body like ours, if it were only for the reason that it is thoroughly undemocratic in character. To us here any possible second chamber that could be adumbrated could only be remotely acceptable if it were somehow or other broad-based upon democratic principles, principles as democratic as the House of Commons itself. Clearly if it is to be broad-based on those principles, the main guide should be this: It should be somehow or other elective. If it is to be elective I do not care whether it is elected at the same
time as the House of Commons or not. If it is to be elective, clearly its Members can be elected only on the basis of some political principles.
What is going to happen? There are four alternatives possible. I take for my division of parties what is so well and easily put by Lord Salisbury in his report. He divides parties into Conservatives and non-Conservatives, which is a simple division and so easy: it does not require too much investigation. But what will happen? You may have a Conservative House of Commons and a Conservative second chamber, in which case what sort of revision will there be? You will be in exactly the same sort of position, on broad principles of policy, as you have now, because both sections in both Houses will be of the same political conviction. Or you might have a non-Conservative House of Commons and a non-Conservative second chamber, in which case again there is no revision. Or you might have a Conservative House of Commons and a non-Conservative second chamber, in which case you get what? Deadlock, on broad principles. Or you could have a non-Conservative House of Commons and a Conservative second chamber, in which case you again get deadlock. The result is that if you accept the only principle that is acceptable to us, the elective principle, you are either bound to have the situation that no effective revision is possible, or a position where on broad principles you get repeated deadlock. That is exactly what is happening now. Here is the National Government. It has been in office for about 15 months. It has an overwhelmingly Conservative complexion. During that time—I am not raising an old fiscal controversy—there has been a tremendous change in the fiscal policy of this country. Yet when that tremendous change took place only 170 Members of the House of Lords turned up even to discuss it.

Mr. WISE: As the system had to be altered anyhow it was hardly worth while their attending.

Mr. JONES: If a Bill involving a complete revolution in our fiscal policy was to be presented to the House of Lords, a revising Chamber doing its job as it ought to do it, called by Providence to
do its job, surely it would have said, "No, we cannot allow you to pass this Bill."

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: It could not reject the Bill; it was a Money Bill.

Mr. JONES: A Money Bill can be rejected but cannot be amended. [Holy. MEMBERS: "For a month."] Yes, for a month. My whole point is that here is a second chamber in respect of which hon. Members opposite are claiming that its chief merit is that it prevents the Government of the day from carrying legislation that has not been submitted properly to the people of the country. Yet when a revolution in our fiscal policy was presented to the House of Lords they were so indifferent that only 170 of them turned up to discuss it, and even then they were docilely acquiescent and did not even say "Boo" to it.
On behalf of my hon. Friends here I want to say that we take a most serious objection, an unfaltering and unalterable objection, to any proposal, this or any other, for emphasising in any way whatever the hereditary principle as we now know it in the House of Lords. We object completely to granting to the Second Chamber either a veto or a suspensory veto. We object absolutely, beyond reconciliation, to giving to a second chamber any sort of control over finance. That belongs first and foremost and absolutely to the House of Commons. Whatever proposals may be forthcoming, be they these proposals or Lord Salisbury's proposals or any other, hon. Gentleman Opposite may take it from me that we of the Labour party will unanimously give to such proposals our irreconcilable opposition, for to us no authority can rest in anyone outside the duly and properly elected representatives of the people in the House of Commons.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not mind my saying that I think such a Motion as this is a little unworthy, and I will state why. One likes a straight deal in politics. One likes to have a straight fight and a fight without any unfair handicap on the one side or the other. See what the Conservative party has at this moment. It has an overwhelming
Press in its support. It has behind it the representative wealth of the nation. It has at its disposal overwhelming social influence and prestige in the countryside. These are heavy handicaps against us and in their favour. When we fight them we shall have those handicaps against us. Why do they want to weight the dice even more heavily against us by preserving for themselves and their political friends, beyond a peradventure, at least one-half of the suggested new Second Chamber? One-half we are told is to be appointed by people whose only immediate and obvious merit—though they may have others—is that they happen to be the eldest sons of their fathers. Clearly, by us, representing as we believe the working class of this country, such a proposal cannot be entertained. For us there is no merit in the retention of the present House of Lords as we know it, and for that reason I beg to move this Amendment.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: If the hon. Member for South-Eastern Essex (Mr. Raikes) had not left the House I should have liked to have joined with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) in congratulating him on the forcible way in which he put his case as the Mover of the Motion. Like the hon. Member for Caerphilly I, too, have been interested in the variety of new opinions coming from one quarter of the House on this question of the reform of the House of Lords, and I cannot help feeling that some at any rate of the Conservative party have made a considerable advance in this sphere of politics since 1910. I find here in a book which has already been referred to the following words regarding the original crisis which caused the Parliament Act.
During the Parliaments of 1906–1914 the House of Lords, by continually mutilating Bills introduced by a party that had been returned by a big majority at the polls, laid itself open to the charge that it was acting as the mere henchman of the Opposition party in the House of Commons.
One would have expected such words in a Liberal or Labour account of what took place in 1910, but we find them in a book written by two eminent members of the Conservative party in the House of Commons. I understand that they have not written this work in any sense as Ministers, but to find such words in it
shows that time and history do teach something. They may be speaking for themselves, and so am I—I do not know who can speak for anybody else. The opinion, I have quoted, is at any rate that of Members whose opinions we have learned to treat with considerable respect, and I put it forward as that and nothing more.
They go a great deal further than that as the last speaker has pointed out. They go contrary to the Salisbury Committee in putting forward, in the strongest terms, a plea for the complete abolition of the hereditary principle on the ground that a great industrial democracy could not possibly regard a House which contained a hereditary element—even if it were only a part—as anything but a permanent Conservative block put in the way of their desires. I do not suppose that the authors of this book share that feeling with regard to the hereditary element but they know that the bulk of the nation will so regard it. Therefore, in order to pave the way to what they desire, they are prepared to make that great sacrifice. That, I think, is a great advance. It means that not every Conservative regards the hereditary principle in the same light as the gentleman who writes so entertainingly in the "Evening Standard" and who thinks that legislators can be bred like shorthorns or cocker spaniels. We have got a little beyond that stage and that is a great advance.
Nevertheless, I feel that behind all these proposals, from whatever quarter of the Conservative party they come, there is one common element which is important. First and foremost, they want to get rid of the Parliament Act. After that, apparently, it is thought that you may do what you like with the constitution of the House of Lords. It may be necessary to pay some kind of price to get rid of the Parliament Act, but the point is to get rid of it and to put back some chamber able and willing to destroy decisions of the original chamber when it does not happen to like those decisions. I can only regard the differences of opinion between the authors of this book and the authors of the Salisbury Report and the Mover and Seconder of this Motion as corresponding to different degrees of optimism as to how much they think people will stand. Some Conservative Members think that they can
get back the whole of the pre-Parliament Act powers without any alteration whatever in the House of Lords. They are the super-optimists. Others like my hon. Friends who have spoken here think that it is necessary to make some concession, though they do not want to give too much. Others like the authors of the book to which I have referred realise that it is necessary to pay a very big price, but the prize is so wonderful that they are prepared to pay it. They say on the very last page of the book that they part with the hereditary principle with the greatest reluctance. They regard it in the light of an old friend who has served them well in the past but has now become out-at-elbows and rather shabby. They do not like to be seen about with him, so they are prepared, in this emergency, to part from him with regret. That is what they are doing.
I can only regard any attempt of that kind with the greatest suspicion. The Mover of the Motion laid emphasis on removing the swamping power of the Crown to create peers, to dispose, in the last resort, of resistance by the House of Lords. I think he made a constitutional mistake in assuming that the Prime Minister had only to give his advice in that matter to the Sovereign in order to get an immediate creation of as many peers as he wanted. That is historically inaccurate. If hon. Members read the history of those times they will find that the Sovereign of the day laid down definite conditions, which were his own conditions and not the Prime Minister's, on which alone he would consent to the creation of peers. There is that safeguard. It ought not to be forgotten that the whole object of these proposals is to give the Second Chamber a power which is almost unthinkable in these times, the power of forcing a Dissolution if it should choose to do so. That is one of the most important powers that could be given to any body. I do not know that anyone will dispute the suggestion that these proposals would give to the Second Chamber the power to force a Dissolution. To give an absolute veto of the kind proposed would mean that a second chamber could make it impossible for the House of Commons to get on with its work, and the Prime Minister of the day would have no alter-
native but to dissolve. That is one of the most important features in these proposals.
Why is it suggested that this reversion to the days before the Parliament Act is necessary? It is said in this book that in these days of almost universal suffrage much greater and more sudden changes in public opinion may occur than those to which we have been accustomed in past history. That is true enough. It is also said that a comparatively slight change in the mind of the electorate may lead to a change in the House of Commons out of all proportion to that change in the country. That, also, we know to be true. It is not only true in my own experience that there has been this Parliament or any other particular Parliament which has been unrepresentative of the people since the war; I think they have all been unrepresentative of the people since the war in one way or another. What we lose on the swings we gain on the roundabouts. Under this electoral system there has always been a discrepancy, and I am prepared to grant that.
I am prepared to go farther, and to grant the danger that when that happens the majority of the moment may seize the opportunity to impose upon the country measures for which they have no mandate, or which have not been sufficiently explained to the people at the election. I think that has happened in the last 12 months, quite clearly but I do not draw the conclusion which the Mover of the Motion does, and I think he has gone a very long way about to remedy the evil which he sees. He appears to take it for granted that it is in the nature of things that the House of Commons, because under the present electoral system it may be unrepresentative, is always going to be like that, and that you are to set up some completely different authority to prevent it doing what it does, even in the last resort to prevent it doing anything at. all, because that is what it comes to. Surely it would be a far more democratic proceeding to begin by devising an electoral system which would produce a House of Commons as nearly as possible representative of the electorate and, having done that, to let it act and legislate upon that assumption.
We all know that human institutions are fallible. You will never get a House of Commons which is completely and perfectly representative, but neither democracy nor any other system of the kind will work at all unless you are ready to take it for granted, when you have taken all the precautions that you can to get a fair election, that that House of Commons has the right to legislate. I think you must do that. I have been very much disappointed, and I may say shocked, with the proceedings of the present Government, which I was elected to support, during the last 12 months, but I have never suggested, nor have hon. Members opposite, that some exterior power should come down and say, "No, you must never do that." We have all been prepared, although reserving our right to object, to accept the fact that this majority will rule as it chooses, and if it is wrong, well, its Nemesis will come at the hands of the electorate at the next election, and in the end that is the only safeguard which we can possibly have.
In these matters there is one distinction which I should like to draw. I believe that a newly-elected House of Commons—and I am going back as far as that very old book on the British constitution by Walter Bagehot—is the nearest thing to the sovereign power in this country which we can possibly have, and that is right, but it is undoubtedly true that as the term of the five-year Parliament goes on towards the end—by-elections will probably show it—it is beginning to lose touch. A revulsion of opinion may have taken place against it in the country, and the atmosphere is very different. There is a case for saying that you ought to have some check on it, at any rate in its later years. Of course, you have it under the present constitution, because the present House of Peers has a complete power of veto, as good as it ever had before the Parliament Act, except for money Bills, for the simple reason that there is not time in the last two years of a Parliament for any Government to go through the various stages which they would need to surmount the veto of the House of Lords. The process is never actually gone through, because the Government of the day know where they stand and do not try, but I think the Mover and Seconder of the Motion did not give sufficient
emphasis or do sufficient justice to the actual powers which the present Second Chamber have.
They are very considerable. The powers of the Second Chamber, in my view, should be those of delay and revision, and nothing else. It has the power of delay absolutely during the last two years, for all but money Bills, and it has a very considerable power of delay throughout the period, because any House of Commons knows that it is in for a stiff fight with the other place on any particular matter, and unless it is absolutely of the first importance, it will not lightly provoke a battle. They know the tremendous waste of their own valuable Parliamentary time that is involved, and they will meet their enemy while they are in the way with him, and make some compromise. It is very important. The revising power is going on the whole time. All of us who have been any time in this House of Commons have seen how Government after Government—the Governments of hon. Members opposite as well as others—have found that House quite a convenience on occasion. They have not quite been able to get ready in time for the Report Stage in this House, or perhaps there is some suggestion of the Opposition which has not been fully digested, and they make the offer across the Table, which is freely accepted, "We will undertake to deal with this in another place." It is very useful, and I should like to preserve that kind of function for the Second Chamber.
I am quite aware that functions of this kind—the function of delay within the life of Parliament, and the function of revision, which probably means revision on matters not of absolutely first importance—in no sense put the other House on at all an equal footing with this House. I know they do not. I do not want them to, I have no ambition to see a bicameral system in which the two Chambers are on an equal footing; but I recognise, in the subordinate capacity which I have indicated, the very real value which can be possessed by the other Chamber. Very often I have gone away from Debates here and read what has been said in the other place, and I have been very much indebted, and sometimes more informed by what I have read there
than by what I have heard here. That may happen, because there are very eminent and useful people there. There is no good denying it, and I want to face that fact fully; but for all that, I cannot imagine anybody who calls himself a Liberal, to whatever section of the party he belongs—I do not mind whether he sits on a Government Bench or not—being willing, as he would be by accepting this Motion, in effect, to consent to the undoing of the carrying of the Parliament Act before the War, which perhaps, with the single exception of the Reform Bill, was the greatest and the hardest fight the Liberal party ever had to go through.
I cannot imagine their consenting to that, and I cannot help seeing, in all these proposals, that the reform of the constitution of the House of Lords—and really I do not think I am misinterpreting the hon. Members who support this Motion—is quite subsidiary to the restoration of the veto. To restore the veto is the first thing, and then perhaps they would be able to do this or that. So long as the reform of the constitution is bound up with the restoration of the veto, I say frankly that I would rather have the present House of Peers. The present House of Peers has learned by long experience how to walk circumspectly. It knows that if it strained its powers too far, it might be endangering its whole existence; but if you got an elected House, elected by these new and complicated methods that are suggested, such as election by county councils and borough councils—somehow or other, I cannot envisage that as an ideal second chamber, but that is one of the proposals that has been put forward—they would have an entirely new arrogance. They would say, "You say you represent the people, but, after all, so do we," and in a sense it would be true. The result would be lamentable, because you would have two Legislatures legislating the one against the other and leading to complete deadlock. Therefore, I cannot see, in any of the proposals that have been put forward on this matter, any real hope for a proper constitutional reform.
If hon. Members would say, "We accept the Parliament Act; we are merely trying to improve the Second Chamber," that would be a very different thing, and
no doubt there are some things they could do at once. I think they could quite properly, even this Parliament, give a power of selection of life peers other than the present Law Lords, who are the only life peers. The House of Lords is impoverished because many who ought to be in it and who would be glad to go there do not do so because they happen to have sons whom they do not want to saddle with what might be in some cases the intolerable handicap of a title in future. Many Members of the party opposite might be in that position. They might want to put some of their best men in that place, but they would not be able to do so. That is a situation which has to be met, but it is a comparatively minor reform which does not make much difference to the constitutional position. This Parliament has no right to make any major constitutional reforms—any major alterations either in the powers or the constitution of the House of Lords.
What lies at the bottom of this demand for the reform of the House of Lords? Is it not that there is a danger that a House of Commons elected on one issue might, with its majority so obtained, create an absolute revolution in an entirely different department of politics? It is proposed here that a House of Commons elected on a great popular cry, on an economic issue, should come out into the constitutional field and make an enormous change for which it has no mandate whatever, and for which the Seconder of the Motion frankly and properly admitted that it had no mandate. That seems entirely to dispose of the Motion, the whole essence of which is a demand for immediate action. It would clearly be not merely unconstitutional, but, in the ordinary sense, not quite playing the game if a Government which had obtained an enormous majority upon an economic issue, which had used its full powers not only to pass very revolutionary legislation in the economic sphere, but to hurry it through by every means in its power, should leave as an inheritance to its successors a future in which any legislation they might propose was under the threat of change, delay and absolute veto by some other body to which they had restored powers which long ago it was considered that they
should not have. I hope that the Government will realise that they cannot possibly enter on any such gross abuse of their powers. If they should undertake any kind of legislation of this kind, they may be perfectly certain of receiving the most strenuous resistance from, I believe, Liberals of every denomination in the House; they will also receive the greatest resentment from the great mass of people who supported them on quite other issues.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: I once remember reading a speech delivered by the late Mr. Gladstone, who was one of the most distinguished Members this House ever had. In that he said that Toryism was mistrust of the people qualified by beer, and that Liberalism was trust of the people qualified by prudence. I challenge clever scholars in the House to tell me the difference. So far as Socialists are concerned, they have nailed their colours to the mast. We say that the only kind of reform the House of Lords deserves is chloroform. Some of us have in our time had the opportunity of studying the history of this august assembly, and I have listened to some of the Debates out of curiosity. I go there in the same frame of mind in which I go to Madame Tussaud's—to see the curiosities. I find that the men who are supposed to control our actions, the people who tell us when we are doing wrong, are conspicuous by their absence when their judgment is supposed to be for the advantage of the State. They are never there when they are wanted. Some of them would never be there if they were really necessary. I cannot understand how there can be any compromise upon a principle.
The principle we stand for is that government should be by consent of the governed. We have 22,000,000 electors in the country, of whom 15,000,000 are working people, and they have a right to say for the moment what kind of Government they shall have. At the last election they were led up the garden. They were led to believe that if they voted for what was called a National Government they would save the pound and a lot of other things. What do we find now? The pound has not been saved. To-night the pound stands worse than it did when the Government came into office, and the great
financial geniuses have not been able to restore its stability. Where are all those clever men who have gone from here up to there What contribution have they made to the restoration of our prosperity? The only contribution they have made is a sonorous one. When they are on the benches they are suffering from political myopia. We say that the men and the women who are good enough to make the wealth of the nation are good enough to make the laws of the nation. Before I became a Member of this House and a trade union official, among my other crimes I was a bricklayer's labourer. I used to carry the bricks and mortar up the ladder and the chap on top used to do the work. When I came into this House I was told that I should have to wear another size in hats, but I discovered that the people here were no better than I was. Perhaps they were better educated than me, but I knew when I was hungry, and the people I represented knew how many beans make five, but they could not get them.
The hon. Member who moved the Motion is anxious to preserve some of the old relics of the past. He wants to keep some of the old aristocracy of the country in their proper place just as they used to try to keep us in our proper place
Let us….
Bless the squire and his relations,
Live upon our daily rations,
And always know our proper stations.
The House of Lords have to be preserved so that we may have continuity of legislation—have all those things continued which they wish to be continued, which are the things the workers want to get rid of at the earliest possible opportunity. We sit here for hours. I have watched the House of Lords this week. They have sat 15 hours in the week. And they are the people who know all about it!

Mr. E. T. CAMPBELL: It is because they do not talk nonsense.

Mr. JONES: No, and they cannot even talk sense. All they talk about is their own interests. Whenever a Bill is brought in dealing with landlords or any vested interest they turn up in their hundreds, but if we bring in a Bill for an improvement in the conditions of the people, we find a beggarly array of empty benches in the House of Lords. The other night they were discussing slum
clearances. How many were there? Not 40 out of the 700. That shows the interest they take in the common people; and yet we are asked to preserve them. They ought to be preserved in spirits! Another lot ought to be in homes. They have on occasions been brought out of lunatic asylums to vote against Bills, as I can remember; and even now some of them have to be taken home in bath chairs. And I am asked to agree to a proposition that this sort of thing ought to be continued, that the Mother of Parliaments ought to be kept in durance vile by a collection of congenital idiots?
Another thing—we are interested in finance. We have got so little of it that we know more about it than the people who have a lot. The House of Lords are to have the right to say whether or not taxation shall be levied on the common people. That also means they will have the right to say how much taxation they themselves shall pay. It will work both ways—heads they win and tails we lose, every time they get a chance. If you go back on your previous decision that the House of Commons shall be supreme in matters of taxation you are asking for trouble, and you will get it. You cannot expect a repetition of what happened 12 months ago at every time of asking. You will not have another General Election like that, one. There will be a revulsion of public opinion and the more you pile on the agony the bigger the revulsion will be. You have asked for it—not us. I have never hidden my opinions either on the public platform or anywhere else. I do not believe in second chambers at all. If this were a proposal to be acted on even hon. Members opposite would be afraid to face their constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, some of you may be living in bug hutches, and can make sure that you are going to be re-elected as a consequence of the policy you are now pursuing. The House of Lords is only trying to create an antagonism between the common people and the select people whom you want to try to bring forward. A second chamber is unthinkable in my view. I may be wrong; I hope I am right. We have no second chambers in the case of local authorities.

Sir GEOFFERY ELLIS: There are aldermen.

Mr. JONES: But aldermen have no right to dictate to the council. They are only a small minority, and they have no authority to over-ride the decision of the council. I happen to be an alderman myself. Aldermen have no right to take part in elections, except as Returning Officers in order to declare the result, and they cannot take part in the election of other aldermen, being disfranchised in that respect. If there is going to be any control the men who are continually doing the work of administration and legislation are the men who ought to have the veto—if there is to be any veto If 16,000,000 or 17,000,000 out of the 22,000,000 electors take the trouble to go to the polls and to record their votes, why should their decisions be over-ridden by a crowd of gentlemen, more or less respectable, some of whom only claim the right to govern because they claim to be the sons of their fathers, though a lot of them would have difficulty in proving it? After we have carried through our election campaigns, have placed our programmes before the people and have been elected, these gentlemen, some of whom have never taken part in political or national affairs to any extent, come forward and claim the right to say what we shall do and what we shall not do, how far we shall go, and when we are to stop. That is an insult to the intelligence of a real democracy, and because we object to it we want one chamber. The people have been given the right to say what kind of Government they want, and that Government ought to have the freedom to carry through legislation in accordance with the views of the people expressed at the polls.

Mr. WISE: I am sure the House will not wish me to follow the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. JONES: Neither do I.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. WISE: —for though some hon. Members found it an entertaining speech yet the hon. Member did not apply himself to the question of a possible reform of the Second Chamber, and therefore I may be forgiven for not traversing his arguments. It seems a very strange thing that anyone can deny the need for an effective Second Chamber of some sort. As far as I know, in all history there is no instance of successful single-chamber Government, and such nations as have had the blessings of a balanced constitution either
through bicameral or tricameral Government, and have abandoned these necessary balances, have relapsed almost immediately into some form of tyranny.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: May I remind the hon. Member that Scotland had only one Chamber?

Mr. WISE: I am prepared to accept the hon. Member's observation, but I would also draw attention to the fact that the state of government in Scotland before the Act of Union was not ideal.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Not at all.

Mr. WISE: A single chamber is of itself a despotism. It is returned for a fixed period of years, with nothing to over-ride its decisions except its own will, expressed by itself. If that is not a despotism, there is no meaning in the word despotism. It is as a barrier against tyranny of that kind, the tyranny of single chamber government, that hon. Members on this side of the House wish to put up some form of effective balance. We wish to return that effective balance to our Constitution which was unfortunately removed from it during the course of the last 106 years. With all respect to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) I submit that we have, in fact, single chamber government now. It is all very well to say that the Second Chamber can delay legislation other than money Bills for two years, but almost any form of Bill can be sent up to the other place in the form of a Money Bill. We have had more than one such Bill in the last two years, and I will give instances. First of all, we had the Land Taxes. In their intention, they were primarily not a Money Bill. Hon. Members of the Opposition will admit that their primary object was political. In this Government we have had our Tariff Measure. No Conservative will maintain that Tariffs were purely a Money Bill. Their object was to promote the industry of this country and not purely to raise revenue. Therefore the Tariff Measure was a political Bill. Even so, had the other place wished to throw it out they had no opportunity of doing so.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: In both those cases, the Speaker's certificate was necessary.

Mr. WISE: I entirely agree with the hon. Member as to the certificate of the Speaker, but the definition of a Money Bill is so loose that almost anything by clever draftsmanship can be constituted a money Bill. The hon. Member for Caerphilly stated in supporting the Amendment that he could not see why we were wasting our time during an economic and financial crisis on what appeared to him to be an academic Motion directed to the suppression of Democracy. This is not purely an academic Motion. It is for the greater liberty of the people, and not the less that we should have bi-cameral government. As a measure of social reconstruction it is necessary to have some sort of effective check to prevent the long term policy of any Government, whether it be one of hon. Gentlemen opposite or our own, being upset violently every five years. That check can be obtained.
The assumption that a second chamber is invariably wholly hostile to legislation of a particular sort, is unjustifiable. In the days before the Parliament Act, a very large number of Meaures which were probably highly objectionable to the majority of the Second Chamber were allowed to pass through it, in spite of its absolute power of Veto, because the Second Chamber as constituted was sufficiently intelligent to recognise that this House in certain circumstances can, and does, reflect the will of the people. The Second Chamber has, in fact, never set itself out to defy the will of the people. In 1911, during the passage of the Parliament Act, two elections were fought on the question of the House of Lords, and in each case the Liberal party lost more and more seats until, from having one of the biggest majorities of that time, they had to pursue a precarious hanging on, with the aid of Labour Members whose party was then in its infancy, and of about 85 wild Hibernians. Even then, the House of Lords was expressing the will of the people and not defying it. It was possibly not expressing the will of Southern Ireland, but nobody has ever been able to do that.

Mr. LOGAN: The Irish Members did, when they were here.

Mr. WISE: The same Irish Members are endeavouring to express the will of their people in Ireland now, with singular lack of success.
A violent attack has been made to-night upon the hereditary system. I agree with the Mover of the Motion that the hereditary system is a necessity. I cannot see any reason why it should be less effective than popular election. I do not wish to reflect upon this honourable House, because I am very proud of being a Member of it, but I submit that there have been times when this House was not an advertisement for the infallibility of the electorate. A non-elected body has certain merits, in that they have not invariably to keep one eye on the next election, before they make up their minds upon any proposal. It is in order that we may have some better balanced body that we are supporting this Motion tonight.
I want to emphasise once again that the restoration of an effective Second Chamber will make for greater liberty, and not for less. Failure to restore it will make for less liberty in an increasing degree through the years. Whatever mandate we had at the last General Election, if we had not a mandate to preserve the liberty of the subject, we had no mandate at all. I hope that hon. Members will remember that, in the words of the poet,
Whenever mob or monarch lays
Too rude a hand on English ways,
both this House and the strengthened Second Chamber will be there to protect the liberties of our people.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. SOMERVELL: The few remarks which I have to make will be from a different point of view from any that has yet been expressed. I oppose this Motion, but not in the least on the lines suggested by hon. Members of the Opposition, though they will, I hope, be grateful to me because I shall make relevant certain parts of their speeches which were not relevant, so far as I can see, at the time that they were delivered. Much of what was said from their Front Bench was directed to attacking the present House of Lords, which up to this time has not been defended. T wish to do what I can to mitigate the zeal for intemperate and subversive reform which animated the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers). I shall not go back as far as the hon.
Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who had indeed to go back to 1649 in order to get his political principle.
Any reform such as that outlined in this Motion would do three things: it would certainly take a great deal of time; it would undoubtedly create—which would be deplorable—a division among the supporters of the National Government, and would create divisions between Members of the Conservative party in this House, and perhaps in another place. It would not be regarded by the great mass of the people as in any sense a contribution to the great problems which they are looking—and looking successfully—to the present Government for solution. Those are not conclusive reasons, because it may well be that the electors are taking a short view of their interests. It is strange that the House of Lords as at present constituted is logically anomalous; but our country and our Constitution are full of anomalies, and insight can often see behind a logical anomaly practical and workmanlike conditions. We do not destroy and remodel our institutions according to theory, but we preserve the old forms, and our Constitution models itself to perform the functions which the new circumstances require of it.
The present Second Chamber, as has been pointed out, has no absolute veto within the first two or two and a-half years of Parliament. I believe that to be right. I think that the powers of delay under the Parliament Act have been very much underrated by some of those who have taken part in this Debate. The general force of public opinion in this country, if given a reasonable time, is overwhelming, and, if a Measure can stand up for two years before public opinion, can be reintroduced, and the Government which has reintroduced it can still retain in this House its effective majority, I myself should have very little fear that such a Measure, whether right or wrong, had not the substantial support of the people behind it. I believe that those powers are very considerable indeed, and, as has also been pointed out, after the first two years of a Parliament the veto is an absolute one.
I believe that great advantages flow from the fact that our present Second Chamber is in its constitution anomalous, and that it contains much wisdom among
its effective Members. It is because it has anomalies in its constitution that it can recognise, against the individual opinion of its Members, the authority of a majority of this House. I do not know whether it was the first, but no doubt the most famous occasion on which that was done was at the time of the Reform Bill of 1832, under the advice and direction of the Duke of Wellington. It was done on the well known occasion of the disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1869, and it has been done repeatedly, and, indeed, perhaps, increasingly since. I find great difficulty in seeing how a reconstituted—and I will give my hon. Friends the benefit of the assumption that it would be a rationally reconstituted—Second Chamber could act in that way. What right would a Member who had been sent there by a county council have to say, "I am not going to act according to my opinion, although you sent me here to represent you; I am going to stand aside because of a certain result or a certain state of affairs in the other Chamber"? I think it would be difficult to find examples from other parts of the world where a second chamber, deliberately rationally constituted for the purpose of a second chamber, has considered itself entitled to stand aside, as it were, and give the authority of a majority in the other chamber its way.
We have in the House of Lords a Second Chamber which works—and, I suggest, works effectively—according to the spirit and sense of our Constitution. It has considerable powers, which are used to revise and amend, and which cannot and will not be used to thwart the will of the people, but which can on a proper occasion be used to ensure that public opinion has time—one year, or, if necessary, two years—in which to make itself felt with regard to any Measure of importance as to which the will of the people may be at any rate in doubt. Judging by the test of practical working, I say that there are no grounds for the Motion which has been moved, and that we should do well to preserve what we have inherited, instead of seeking some conglomerate and at present undefined body which would represent no principle that has yet been put forward in an intelligible form.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I do not think that any good purpose would be served by my replying at any length to the two speeches which have come from the Opposition Benches, but I noticed that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the Resolution did not see fit to announce on behalf of his party that they were committed to single-chamber government. It would, I think, be interesting, before this Debate draws to a conclusion, to know whether the opposition of the Labour party to any second chamber is absolute, or whether, as was rather indicated by one passage in the hon. Gentleman's speech, they would be disposed to take a second chamber based on the elective principle.
If I may say so, I think that the two most arresting speeches that we have heard in opposition to the Resolution were those of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) and of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell). I should like in a very few words to stress what I think was the point of view of most of us who have been studying this matter and who have produced a report.
It has been suggested that our sole purpose was to do away with the Parliament Act, and to give the smallest quid pro quo in the form of liberalising the composition of the Upper Chamber. That, so far as I am concerned, is quite untrue. I certainly should not be prepared to vote for extending the powers of the Upper House so long as it is composed as it is at the present time, but, when the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough says that it was our purpose to enable the Second Chamber to resist a decision of this House, that, of course, is perfectly true. I am unable to see the value of an Upper Chamber if it must necessarily register whatever decision is come to by this House. The value of the House of Lords in the past has been that it has shown a. remarkable power of distinguishing between Measures passed by this House which really represented the consensus of opinion of the country and those which did not. There have been remarkable occasions of that kind, such as that on which the House of Lords threw out Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill and a subsequent general election
showed that the people of the country shared the opinion of the Lords. I am quite willing to admit that on that occasion the House of Commons may have been wiser than the House of Lords and the people, but that hardly an argument that can be put to us from those who constitute themselves the protagonists of complete democratic government.
We have endeavoured to put forward two alternative schemes. One is based upon the elective principle, and the other is based upon the principle of nomination by whoever is the Leader of the strongest party in the House of Commons at the time. I confess that, so far as I am concerned, I think that perhaps the old-fashioned admiration for the principle of election is somewhat less strong than it was. I should have thought that to some hon. Gentlemen here the suggestion of nomination would make a very great appeal. We find at the present time that there is in this House a very large majority of those who are now accused of conspiring against the liberties of the people. I am inclined to think that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches would be well advised to consider whether, in the long run, it would not, be in the interests of Oppositions of both the right and left that you should have a system of nomination so that when a Government has been in office for some time it will be able to appoint a large number of representatives of its party to the Upper House. I do not know whether we are sure that because all of us here have been successful candidates at the last Election there are no people who can with advantage take a share in legislation except those who are successful in contesting a popular constituency. Personally, I would suggest that all parties alike would benefit very greatly if they were able to find seats in the upper Chamber for those Members of their party who very frequently contribute very largely to the formulation of the policy which is to be put forward, but who are not, whether for reasons of health or disposition, suitable candidates at a General Election.
May I remind the House of what the actual proposals are? We are suggesting that there should be a reconstitution of the Upper House on a
basis which will secure a fair and an adequate representation of all shades of political opinion. The accusation which has been brought against the Upper House, is, I think, primarily, that it is predominantly Conservative, and only in a secondary degree that it is hereditary. I feel that at the present time the House of Lords does possess very considerable powers, but the utilisation of those powers is made almost impracticable by the fact that there is an overwhelming majority of Conservative Peers there, and so it is quite impossible for the House of Lords to secure a fair consideration of any Amendment in Commons legislation, because this large Conservative majority gives the impression—it may be a fair impression—that their criticism is not wholly impartial. Speaking for myself, I can say that I will not be a party to increasing the powers of the House of Lords without a very great modification of its personnel. I regard that modification, with possibly the democratisation of its personnel, as being the first and most urgent necessity. We have brought forward this Motion in order to ventilate a subject which was described as one that brooked no delay a quarter of a, century ago. We have brought this matter up early in this Parliament in order that there should be an exchange of opinion between all sections of opinion here.
I am sorry that there are indications, not so much from the speeches made this evening as from speeches made in the country, that apparently make it almost hopeless for us to look for any constructive suggestions from the Opposition Benches. I hope that the same will not be true of the Liberal party. I should deprecate any attempt by my own party to avail themselves of their present majority in order to carry out some measure of reform of the Upper Chamber which was not agreed to by reasonable and moderate men of other parties, and which was not likely to secure from the reasoned judgment of the country unanimous assent. I hope that in the course of the Debate this evening we may have an opportunity of ascertaining what are the chief criticisms of the proposals which have been put forward by
us. We are not in any way wedded to the details of the proposals. If valid criticism of them is made, we shall be the first to be willing to consider it, but I would ask the House to regard this Motion as one which brings up a grave and a weighty subject, and one which at the present time this House is in a particularly favourable position to consider and discuss.

9.31 p.m.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I am certain that I am expressing the views of every Member of this House when I say that we are extremely grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) for bringing forward this Motion, not only because it has produced a very interesting Debate, but also because it has enabled us to listen to a most attractive speech from him which was wholly admirable both in matter and manner of delivery. If I do not attempt to follow him or subsequent speakers in detail in regard to the various possibilities in the way of reform of the House of Lords, it is simply for this reason, that I am determined that my intervention in this Debate shall be of the briefest possible description. I am not going to interfere with the newly-restored rights of private Members for more than a very few minutes, whether my intervention is timed by inches in the OFFICIAL REPORT or by the stop-watch.
Let me say one word, first of all, about the Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) that it was not made wholly plain whether the Amendment was intended to convey that the Opposition are absolutely determined to have another place abolished altogether, or whether they object to the hereditary principle being introduced into a new revised chamber. If it is the first, let me answer the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) who went back to 1649 for his principles with another quotation from the same period. Oliver Cromwell said that the uncontrolled domination of this House was the "horridest arbitrariness" in the world. We all know where we can find that quotation. We have been most kindly provided with it in one of the books to which reference has been made. If, on the other hand, it is intended to
object to the retention of the hereditary principle in a new revised chamber, then I say the Amendment cannot be accepted, because that would be to prejudge the question as to 'how the revision of the Second Chamber should be brought about, and would be wholly premature. So, I say quite definitely that I must invite the House to reject the Amendment.
With regard to the Motion itself, as the hon. Member for Doncaster reminded the House a moment ago—though he a little over-stated the period—it is precisely 21 years since the Preamble of the Parliament Act was passed, and Mr. Asquith, as he then was, said that reform brooked no delay. But I am not going to suggest that, because that delay has survived its infantile ailments and has attained a healthy majority, it is to be allowed to be prolonged indefinitely until it dies from old age. While recognising the supreme importance of this question, as everyone at present does, we must be realists in this matter. This House, after all, was mainly elected to deal with a supreme national crisis. No one can pretend for a moment that the issues raised by this Motion, if legislation were attempted, would not necessarily involve an enormous amount of Parliamentary time. A Bill dealing with this situation, quite plainly, would have to be the major Bill of a Session. Everyone knows that the time of the House, so far as this Session is concerned, is mortgaged up to the hilt to deal with the things that we were primarily sent here to deal with. Can anyone say that the difficulties with which we are now confronted will not be present with us next Session or, for the matter of that, in the Session after next?
I should be trifling with the House of Commons if I were to give any sort of promise, in reply to the questions addressed to the Government as to whether they can undertake to deal with this matter during the lifetime of the present Parliament, which would fetter the Government in the disposal of their time to deal with the grave economic issues which we were sent here to deal with. On the other hand, allow me to say that, if it is found possible to deal with this matter during the present Parliament, nothing could be more useful than that this Debate should have taken place. It has enabled Members to put
forward freely their contributions to a solution of the problem.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will not detain the House for many minutes, because everyone has seemed to agree that this was to be a Debate in which Members who do not sit on these two benches should take the most part, but we have been challenged by three Members who apparently do not quite understand our position. My colleagues here think that that is not the fault of our spokesman—I only say that in his defence—but I want to make two or three things quite clear. We are definitely and unalterably opposed to the hereditary principle, and, if there is to be any reform, we want that swept away root and branch. The second thing is that we do not want, and we would not support, but would fight against, the establishment of any second chamber which had the right to override the decision of a Parliament which has gone to the country asking for a mandate to carry out a certain policy. We deny the right of any other assembly to upset the decision of such a House. We do not agree that any other body should be appointed to upset the decisions of the elected House, always provided that it has kept faith with the electors on the policy and programme put before them. This House would be doing entirely differently from that if it was to embark on a policy of House of Lords reform, because we think the Government have no mandate for it and that it was not put to the country at all.

Mr. MOLSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to elucidate who is to interpret what is the mandate of the House of Commons?

Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly not another Chamber, indirectly elected, at the other end of that corridor, either partly hereditary or partly elected or wholly elected in any particular way. If this House does not execute its mandate in a proper manner, the electors will turn it out when they get the chance. You cannot create a kind of deity that is going to decide these things. The people at the other end of the corridor are only men like ourselves, and they have no more omniscience than we have.
The third point we make is that no one has yet said a word as to why this
thing should be done now. This business has gone on for a very long time and now, suddenly, we are apparently to do something to prevent hasty, ill-considered legislation. Why should it be hasty, ill-considered legislation when it is one or perhaps two particular parties that may be bringing it forward? The House of Lords never interferes with the august decisions of this majority anyhow, and I have never known it interfere with the decisions of a Conservative House of Commons. We believe quite sincerely that the people who are bringing these proposals forward have one object only, to cripple a possible Socialist majority in this House. The gentleman who writes under the initials A.B.B. in the "Evening Standard" is quite right. He interprets the minds of those who are bringing forward these proposals better than they do themselves. He wants this huge majority to be used in order that, if the Socialist obtain a majority, there shall be a body at the other end which will stop their legislation. I can only wish them joy of their task if they attempt to stop the will of the British people. The British people can be roused, and they always are roused when they think they are not getting a square deal. We should have preferred that this business should not be brought up at this juncture, but that we should be considering the economic questions which call more loudly for decision than anything else at this time.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: It was not unexpected that Conservatives should draw both first places in the ballot, nor was it unnatural that they should choose for the subject of those Motions two great institutions, the Navy and the House of Lords. In the first instance, the Motion broadly said, "Hands off the Navy," and one might have expected that their second Motion would say, "Hands off the House of Lords." But, curiously enough, a very different Motion has been put down. I do not believe it represents the real feeling of the Conservative party. I believe the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell), just as the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) did when the subject was last debated, more truly represents the views of Conservatives than the
Motion that we are debating. However that may be, it is not for me to say. My function is rather to speak for the small group who represent a large number of voters outside who were in part the cause of the very remarkable Conservative majority. In friendliness to my colleagues—I can assure them that the friendliness is very real—if we see in the subject and the Motion something which endangers the continuation of that support in the country, we are bound to call attention to it. It would be our function in all such circumstances to show, I will not say the red light, which has, perhaps, a sinister interpretation, but, at any rate, the amber light of caution. I can assure my hon. Friends that the pursuit of this subject would seriously alienate the support of a very large number of persons who supported them last year. I do not know if there has been any speaker before in this Debate who successfully went through both the 1910 elections, and who can remember the strenuousness of the fight and the bitterness involved. I pray that the National Government may be preserved from any controversies of that type.
It will be found, I believe, that the National Government is needed after this Parliament, and I look forward to a continuation of the associations which made this very fine Government last year. Therefore, it is my duty to utter a warning if there is real danger. Any device for reforming the Second Chamber always means one thing. It means providing a second chamber with greater powers than the present one possesses, and it also inevitably means that that chamber shall be one which represents one party in the State. I have never seen any proposal suggested which did not have that effect, however little it might have been desired. To offer that in these days as a solution of the second chamber difficulty is not one which, I believe, the country would enjoy. What have been the reasons given for this proposal? All the reasons have been based upon fears of what might happen, and not a single point upon the experience of what, in fact, has taken place. Against those fears I want to place the realities of experience. Surely, it is true that if you place impediments to the natural flow of popular will you will probably produce a blockage and a worse flood
thereafter. We saw this in the first years of this century. I do not know whether Conservatives rejoice now at the rise of the Labour party and the downfall of the Liberal party, but I attribute it in considerable part to the behaviour of the Peers in the earlier days of the century. It was because the Liberal party was compelled to occupy time and to waste it by not achieving things when there was an urgent need for useful legislation. It was because of that that another party was assisted into being, and whether the Conservative party are glad of that or not, the plain Fact is, that you cannot have a second chamber which stems the natural flow of popular will without creating far worse dangers than you actually attempt to avoid.
The whole proposition is based upon the fundamental fallacy that the danger of democracy in Great Britain is that legislation will proceed too rapidly. The danger of democracy is precisely the reverse. British democracy is an extremely slow-moving machine, and, in fact, it tends to move far too slowly for the ordinary progress of social organisation. What is the basic cause of most of our difficulties in these days? It is simply that men operating in other spheres than politics have been able to get on with their job far faster than we have. Scientists and engineers have transformed the material possibilities of life, and while that has been going on the politicians have lagged behind, and social organisation has not kept pace with the processes of modern invention. That is in part the result of democracy. A competent aristocracy, whatever its disadvantages can proceed snore rapidly than democracy. Everybody knows that to implant new ideas into democracy is a process which takes years and years. I do not care what idea you choose to select. Yon may take Christian ethics if you like. This has taken longer than most. You may take the vanity of wealth. There has been enough preached about the vanity of wealth, but democracy has not yet learnt that wealth is not a thing to be desired. Take into consideration internationalism, Socialism or any of these modern ideas, the amount of progress they make in a complete democracy is always too slow to be of adequate avail for the needs with which their advocates seek to deal. That being
so, I ask the House not to proceed either with this Motion, or, still less, with the fulfilment of the legislation which the Motion demands.
There are real grievances in the present system. I have always felt that the Peers have a real grievance in the fact that a number of extremely competent and useful men are not enabled to play their full share in the political life of this country. There is a definite political waste because some of the most able of the Peers are not able to play the part which they would certainly play if they could enter this House. That is a real grievance, and I am not sure that it is not a grievance which is largely at the bottom of the demand for reform. It is the possession of an honourable consciousness of capacity for public service which makes them wish to be able to play a more notable part than they at present are able to play. That is a kind of evil which could properly be remedied, but the proposal that we should strengthen the Second Chamber at the expense of this Chamber, or a proposal which would abolish the perogative of the Crown to create Peers, an essential constitutional safeguard—I ask the House not to proceed with any such ideas.

9.54 p.m.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: I want to sum up, as shortly as I can, what has already been said. First of all, perhaps it will be a surprise if I tell the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that I have come, after long years of sitting opposite him, to a point at which we agree. That is to say, I think that the hereditary primo-genital recruitment of the House of Lords has become perfectly absurd. The three points which we should look upon are these: We want primarily wise counsellors for the King and the State. We have to choose them in one way or another. There is the hereditary way of choosing them, the elective way of choosing them and the nominative way of choosing them. In recent years the hereditary way has become absurd. Can one see any reason for making legislators of grandchildren and great grandchildren of a nobleman who has occupied the position of Lord Chancellor for two years, or, even for a less time, or of a, General who has conducted in years past a campaign in Africa, or of a person who, for
reasons more or less unavowable, has found the graces of the Prime Minister and, to the general surprise of the public, appeared in the Honours List in January One can find reasons why these people were honoured, but why should their sons, grandsons and great-grandsons become hereditary Peers? It is absurd. It was not the custom in the early days of "Barons by writ".
When Edward III had to deal with families which had been for several generations sitting in Parliament, but were Barons who had become entirely obscure and useless, he stopped calling them. On looking through the old Peerages one finds innumerable cases where Baronial families who had been called for generation after generation, suddenly, although they had not in the least died out in the male line, ceased to be called. The reason was obvious. The King no longer thought that they were fit persons to advise him in Parliament. That practice, unfortunately, ceased when the unhappy system was established of creating Barons by Patent. Then, a Baron by patent, succeeded by his heirs male and sometimes by his heirs general, came into being. I think it is an absurd thing that by the decisions of Tudor and Stuart lawyers we should be landed in the present position of hereditary Peerages. There was an attempt made in the middle of the reign of Queen Victoria to place Lord Wensleydale in the House of Lords for a life Peerage, but the House of Lords struck against it and refused to acknowledge him. That was a most unhappy incident.
What I want to see is that any distinguished person who has served the State and who is likely to be of great advantage to the King in council should be in the position of being in the Second Chamber. There must be a second chamber and I regard almost with pity the people who talk about unicameral Constitutions. Nothing worth while has ever been done by a single chamber.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: What about Scotland?

Sir C. OMAN: I do pot know whether my hon. Friend will say that the Constitution of Scotland was worked well.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Quite as well as the Parliament of England.

Sir C. OMAN: That may be, but let me proceed. We want to see wise councillors for the King and the State, and I must confess that I cannot see why the son or the grandson of somebody who has been a distinguished lawyer in the reign, say, of George IV, is likely to be a more deserving person than somebody who to-day has shown himself of general help to the State. There are many people who are not in the House of Lords simply because they cannot, from their family position, think of leaving their sons or their grandsons loaded with a ridiculous title. A person who has no fortune but great ability is often obliged to refuse to go to the House of Lords because he thinks of his sons and his grandsons. The whole hereditary question seems to me to be now condemned in a House of 700 Peers many of whom are there for the most unavowable reasons.
What are the alternatives? There is the electoral and the nominative principle. Looking at the matter from the point of view of wishing to get for the King and the State wise counsellors, I cannot say that I think the electoral principle would be suitable. When one looks at the sort of person one would like to see in the House of Lords, one thinks of the man who has governed with distinction a great colony for ten years or the man of science whose mind has fathomed all the difficulties of economy, and such individuals are not likely to be the sort of person that the County Council of Leicestershire or Staffordshire would elect to be their representative. Probably the greater part of such a county council would not have heard of the man's name. On the other hand, would such people like to go canvassing against each other? Take a person who has returned from a colony where he has been governor: can one imagine him going to members of a county council and pointing out what a fit person he is, and what a deserving Member of the House of Lords he would be? It would be an undignified position, which men of honour would not consent to take.
There remains the third alternative and one which I face with some difficulty, namely, a nominated second chamber. There one has to deal with the unscrupulous Prime Minister who might load the
Second Chamber with nominees quite unsuitable, mere party hacks, mere persons who have been kicked out of the House of Commons because the House of Commons has no further use for them. There is that very great danger, but I think with the hon. Member who spoke first that there are ways of restricting a nominative second chamber so that it might be useful. There are second chambers in some States Which have been recruited in that way, and I believe they have been justifying their existence. The question is, what should be the check on an unscrupulous Prime Minister who would try to load the chamber with his own partisans? I think, on the whole, that the suggestion made by the mover of the Motion is the right one, that some such body as the Privy Council might have jurisdiction. There is enough honour and enough sense of their duty to their country among the Privy Councillors and people of that status to prevent them passing for party reasons persons unfitted for promotion who might be proffered to them by an unscrupulous Prime Minister. I think that something might be done in that way. I cannot see any salvation for our Constitution unless we have a good second chamber. The hereditary second chamber is doomed, elective second chamber methods would be unsatisfactory, and I think that a nominative second chamber is the solution.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. LINDSAY: The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) will allow me to say that in condemning the hereditary principle I am sure that he does not express the views of a very large number of his constituents. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into the enchantments of the Middle Ages but to come back to the terms of the Motion.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke, as he so often does, of the will of the people; and he seemed to think that this is some sort of Machiavellian plot to thwart the will of the people. I want to assure him that we stand here, just as much as he and his friends, because we were chosen by the will of the people, and we should be failing in our duty if we attempted to thwart the will of the people. The sole object of those who take an interest in this matter is to carry out the will of the
people efficiently and effectively by providing an efficient machine for giving effect to the will of the people. Some of us take the view that the other place as at present constituted is not an efficient machine for carrying out the will of the people. We desire to reform it. The speeches delivered to-night make it quite clear that there are only three possible courses. You can maintain the status quo, a course advocated by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell). You may abolish the House of Lords altogether, a course advocated by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones), and you may reform it. I think too much attention has been paid to the details and form of the particular machinery. That is a matter upon which, obviously, there are many diverse views.
One of the reasons why the Motion is brought forward is that in the future—and it may take a long period of time—these different views may be reconciled and some workmanlike and efficient scheme brought forward which may have a wider measure of agreement. The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked: "What is the hurry? Why do you want to bring this matter up now? There is no crisis, there is no quarrel between this House and the other House. We have not yet started blackguarding each other." It is for that very reason that we are bringing this matter forward now. We are Tories, Conservatives. We do not wait for reform until it is forced upon us by a crisis. We march ahead. We say that if you set about a difficult and delicate piece of work like this in a clear and calm atmosphere, when you are not hustled and hurried, the chances are that you will make a much better job of it than if you wait until a quarrel actually arises. The Leader of the Opposition said that they will not accept anything but an elective second chamber.

Mr. LANSBURY: We have never said that.

Mr. LINDSAY: The right hon. Gentleman was not present at the time but the hon. Member for Caerphilly said something to that effect.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I said that if we have to consider a second chamber the only principle upon which we can remotely accept a second chamber is on the basis of it being an elective chamber.

Mr. LINDSAY: Will the hon. Member tell us whether the Labour party accepts an elective second chamber or do they want uni-cameral government? Is there so much virtue in the principle of election Is it geography only which can carry out the will of the people? Hon. Members of the Labour party will be the last people to say that. Have they ever heard of functional representatives? Many of their trade unions embody that principle. Is it not possible to have a functional second House? Would the Opposition object to that? We have to consider for what purposes a second chamber is necessary. We have been told that it is partly for revision and for the expression of matured judgments on the questions brought before it It is for delay, not unreasonable delay, but delay so that the opinion which is ultimately expressed may be the best. It does not end there. There are other purposes for which a second chamber is necessary. We in this House have to spend our time earning our living and courting our constituencies. We have to bear the burden and heat of the day, but in a second chamber you may find a place for eminent specialists. We are becoming more and more whole-time politicians, but in a second chamber you have a place for those who are not whole-time politicians but eminent specialists. You have a place where you may have a fuller and freer, a more expert and informed, debate than we can have in this House. You have a chamber which can give more time than we can to technical legislation. Therefore we must have a second chamber.
It is clear that there are criticisms which can be offered against the present Second Chamber. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) showed that, although I say nothing about the taste of his speech. I do not know whether he was speaking as an alderman or as a bricklayer's labourer, but his speech showed that there are criticisms. There is the criticism that you see empty benches. Of course you do, because the machine is not working properly. There is nothing to attract them. They are subject to the operation of the Parliament Act, and however eloquent and clever they may be their powers are limited. Therefore, we say that you must make the second chamber more efficient,
and it should be undertaken now because it will take a long time. Many conflicting views have to be reconciled. I appreciate the point that this is not. a matter immediately relevant to the present crisis, but it is a matter which wilt take some time and which must be undertaken at some time. The Government have to make up their minds between three alternatives, to maintain the status quo, to reform or to abolish altogether. Clearly they will not abolish, and if they maintain the status quo are they not maintaining something which is not efficient? Therefore, ought they not to reform; and to set about it as quickly as possible.

10.12 p.m.

Lord SCONE: There are before the House two issues; first, whether we should have a two Chamber system or a unicameral system, and secondly, if we are to have a system of two Chamber Government whether we are to retain the present Upper Chamber in its present emasculated form or restore it to a higher level of efficiency. As to the first point, we have not yet been able to ascertain from the Opposition whether they would accept the principle of two Chambers; but as far as we can gather they do not. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) was nearly definite on this point, but the Leader of the Opposition was by no means so definite, and it would be of interest to this House and to the country to know whether if and when the electors decide to put a Socialist Government in power as well as in office we are to be faced with the abolition of our present Second Chamber with nothing in its place.
The only remark of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) with which I agreed was that no country has really got on well without some form of Second Chamber government. Two-chamber government is practically universal throughout the whole civilised world and the United States of America, and I submit that this country more than any other requires two chambers because of its peculiar position. We have three parties in the State at the moment, but we seem to be slipping back to the position of having two parties. The result is that a comparatively small turnover of votes at a general election produces a large turnover of seats, and a vast
majority can be given to one or other of the parties far beyond the wishes of the electors. That party may take the opportunity to carry out legislation for which it has no mandate. We have had a mandate for all the legislation that we have carried, to which the Leader of the Opposition has objected. But I would like here to draw the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, who I regret is not in his place, to the fact that I do not know that this House has any mandate for the bringing into being either of the Town and Country Planning Act or the London Transport Bill. We have to-day a situation which is different from anything we have had in the history of this country. We have an Opposition which is a revolutionary and not an evolutionary Opposition. The majority of its leaders—I will not say its rank. and file—are Republicans. One has only to study the earlier writings of the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to realise that.

Mr. LANSBURY: So was Joseph Chamberlain.

Lord SCONE: But Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in his old age learned wisdom. I need not expatiate further on that. The fact remains that a Socialist Government which obtain power as well as office could, and probably would, carry into law within three years, forms of legislation which would irrevocably ruin this country and very likely bring people almost to starvation. We had to face that during the last Administration, when the Socialists had not a majority, it is true, but owing to the more or less sporadic backing of a pusillanimous Liberal semi-opposition they were able so to shake the finances of this country, that this country, and the world with it, were on the brink of disaster. We know only too well from what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague said in the country that, once they obtain power as well as office, there is no limit to the follies they will perpetrate.
Look at what they could do in a little over two years, as things are. They could abolish the Monarchy, and I have had no reply from the Opposition Front Bench to show that the majority are not Republicans. If one looks at a certain Socialist periodical edited by Mr. Thomas Johnston, the ablest villain in the whole
Socialist party, one sees there a steady flow of gibes and jeers against every established institution in the country—against law and the Church, and against the Crown, which in any country that really respected itself would land that right hon. Gentleman in gaol for treason and sedition. That is the position today. Yet we are asked to perpetuate this position and snake it possible for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley and his associates to carry out all the enormities which they have promised, and not one of which they deny. I submit that it would be well for the Government to give earnest consideration to all these problems, not because my still, small voice has called upon them to do so, but because they are self-evidently of the greatest importance to the future of this country, and not to the future of this country alone, because on the future of this country and its prosperity depend the future and prosperity of the world. I have answered, I hope, the question of the hon. Member for Caerphilly and his associates as to why we bring forward this Motion now. We recognise the danger in which the country and the world stand as a result of the machinations, past and future, of the party that sits on the benches opposite.
As regards reform, we have had the hereditary principle very bitterly attacked, but with absolutely no show of reason behind the attack. We have had the hon. Member for Oxford University appealing to ancient history. I very much regret that Chichele Professor of History in my own University should have made such a speech. I would recommend the hon. Member to study not merely history but a little biology, in which case he would find that more and more the powers of heredity are coming to be recognised as having a very great deal of effect. One hon. Member said that one cannot breed legislators as one can breed cocker puppies. It is perfectly true that there are a few misfits in the other Chamber, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition that a good many of those misfits are in the ranks of the Labour party's supporters in that Chamber. It is quite true that the hereditary system throws up a few failures because,
fortunately or unfortunately, our hereditary peerage does not always seek its consorts from a eugenic point of view. If they had a complete sense of responsibility no doubt they would seek to ensure that their offspring were as worthy as they themselves, for the most part, are, but the fact remains that according to biology when you are breeding from good stock you undoubtedly throw up—to use the common expression—90 per cent. or more of the good stock, as against a very limited number of failures.

Sir C. OMAN: Is it not very seldom the case that the eldest son primogenitally, the first produced member of any particular body, is the competent one? I think it is usually the second one.

Lord SCONE: I happen to be an only child and therefore I can claim that I am also the youngest son, and all the sons. Having made what I hope is an adequate retort to the hon. Member, may I proceed to point out that if you take a good stock of horses or dogs, or anything you like to postulate, for breeding purposes, you will find that in a few years you have established a stock in which a majority are of eminent value. What we are proposing here is a scheme whereby the misfits and the failures are to be rejected from membership. We are going to improve the quality. We are going, not to breed eugenically but to choose eugenically, and I submit that the proposal deserves serious consideration. I agree thoroughly with my hon. Friend the Member for South Eastern Essex (Mr. Raikes) that we should retain, if possible, at least half of the reconstituted House on the hereditary principle.
As to the remainder, I am more in agreement with the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Lindsay) than with any other speaker. I do not like the system of election by county councils or any of the systems of election which have been mentioned. I am not so enthusiastic either about certain aspects of nomination but I think there ought to be a certain amount of nomination, and I would like that nomination to be on the functional basis suggested by the hon. Member for South Bristol. In my recon-
stituted second chamber one would have a limited number of bishops—the number would be drastically cut down but they would still be present. One would have representatives of other churches, not merely Christian churches, but also Jewish and Moslem, because of the many millions of our fellow subjects of the Empire who are of those races, and possibly other churches as well. One would have representatives of the arts and sciences—say, the President of the Royal Academy, or if he was too infirm or too busy to attend or was not interested in politics someone to take his place. There would also be the President, or someone appointed by the Society of Architects, and similarly by the Royal College of Music, by the British Medical Association, and so on.
I would widen the basis very much. I would introduce representatives of our Dominions and the larger Crown Colonies. Furthermore, I would give representation to large employers of labour, to the Federation of British Industries and similar bodies. I may say for the benefit of the Opposition I would give adequate representation to the trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I can understand the sneers of hon. Members opposite, but I would have, say, two members for each of the larger trade unions, one representing each of the medium-sized unions, while groups of small unions would nominate a member. On such a basis I believe you would get a second chamber which would be of the very greatest advantage to this country and to the world, because it would save this country from the not merely possible but certain consequences of the disastrous follies to be perpetrated by any Socialist Government if and when it achieves power as well as office.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: From time immemorial it has been the custom to speak of the House of Lords with a certain amount of contempt. This House has always regarded itself as the superior House. A certain very distinguished statesman of the earlier part of the 18th century, Lord Chesterfield, described the House of Lords as "a hospital for incurables," and the Duke of Wellington, in the earlier part of last century, said of the House of Lords:
Nobody cares a damn for the House of Lords.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I am quoting the Duke of Wellington. In spite of these criticisms of the House of Lords it has steadily continued to fulfil the functions that the constitution has allotted to it. I am sorry that the Motion that has been proposed to-night has been proposed, and personally I shall not be able to vote for it. My motto in the matter would be:
Quieta non movere"—
"Let sleeping dogs lie." There is no general desire at present for the reform of the House of Lords. I do not believe that in the rank and file of the Conservative party throughout the country there is any general desire for it. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) mentioned four separate occasions on which the reform of the House of Lords 'has been pressed to the front, this being the fourth. But nothing has ever come of these efforts, because, I argue, there is no general desire for the reform of the House of Lords behind these efforts. The lion. Member for Caerphilly also pointed out that this Motion was coming from the Conservative benches and not from his benches. 1 believe that it is not coming from his benches because they are satisfied that the House of Lords at the present time had better be left alone. that it is doing its work as well as it can be expected to do it. I do not put it any higher than that. The Labour party are satisfied that the House of Lords is not an obstacle to their work and to their efforts.
There are two ways in which the House of Lords can be prevented from permanently thwarting the will of the people. If a Measure goes to the House of Lords three times, and is rejected, it can be passed without their sanction. That is one method. The other method is the power that the Prime Minister for the time being has of making to his Sovereign a demand for the creation of a sufficient number of Peers to carry out the wishes of the Administration for the time being. Once only has there been any mass production of Peers, and that was in the reign of Queen Anne, when a sufficient number of Peers was created to convert a Whig House of Lords into a Tory House
of Lords. On several occasions Ministers have threatened the House of Lords with the creation of Peers without its having been necessary to carry the threat into effect. William IV gave Lord Grey permission to create sufficient Peers to carry the Reform Bill into law, and King George V gave Mr. Asquith the promise to create a sufficient number of Peers to carry the Parliament Bill. You have, therefore, two safeguards against a permanent opposition on the part of the House of Lords to the will of the people.
I must say, with such knowledge as I have of the history of my country, that I cannot imagine that anything in the nature of a revolution would be prevented by any sort of second chamber that might be created. When the nation is determined, the House of Lords has to give way. There are no two events in the history of the nineteenth century to which the House of Lords were more opposed than the Reform Act of 1832 and the abolition of the Corn Laws. The House of Lords were not only opposed to the Act of 1832, which converted this country from aristocratic government to popular government; if one reads the Debates of the Houses of Parliament at that time they will see that the House of Lords thought that the Reform Act was the end of all things. But they gave in and passed the Act. Again, with the repeal of the Corn Laws, the House of Lords saw nothing but ruin facing them, but they gave in. We may always rely on the House of Lords, when it realises that the nation is determined on a particular Measure, to give in, because it has always done so.

Sir BASIL PETO: There was a General Election before the House of Lords gave way on the Reform Act.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: The House of Lords only gave way under the advice of the Duke of Wellington, because they knew that William IV had given permission for the creation of Peers. It was not a General Election that caused the House of Lords to withdraw their opposition. The study of the history of our country shows that it is undoubted that the House of Lords has in the long run seen that it was essential that the will of the people should be yielded to when the will of the people was clearly indicated.

10.33 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Those who have listened to the Debate, and especially to the speech of the Mover of the Motion, to which I should like to add my tribute, and to a number of the other speeches which followed, will agree that the restoration of the day for the discussion of Private Members' Motions has been amply justified by the quality of the Debate. There is one respect in which I am sure those of my friends who are interested in this Motion feel some disappointment. We had hoped to get some clear idea of the policy of the Opposition because of the fact that they put down an Amendment. The question was dealt with at the Labour Party Conference when, so far as resolutions can kill, the House of Lords was killed in two minutes. No speeches were made.
Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried.
To-night we thought, when they put forward a positive Amendment, that we should have some indication of their policy. We thought that no party could wish to abolish an institution like the House of Lords without having a clear idea of whether they were going to fill its place by some other institution, or whether they were going to abolish it permanently. There is no longer a silence such as prevailed at the Labour Party Conference, for we have had a series of speeches from the opposite side, but we are still left with exactly the same ambiguity.
We have heard a condemnation of the hereditary principle, but I have waited again and again for some justification of that condemnation. When did the House of Lords flout the will of the people when the Socialist Government were in office? What instance can they give? What occasion was there when it was done? As a matter of fact, all of us who went about the lobbies during the Socialist Government's term of office heard an entirely different complaint put forward. The complaint about the House of Lords, as then stated by them, was that under its very wise and prudent leadership it never gave them the chance, or the excuse, of going to the people to say to them that their will had been flouted. I have heard that more than
once, and every Member who has been in this House has heard it too; and every Member on the benches opposite who was in the last Parliament knows perfectly well that it was true. I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), when he says that they view the House of Lords with tolerance, to bear in mind that they passed a resolution in the party conference outside, and have put down an Amendment to-night, for its abolition. I can hardly imagine any clearer way of expressing a desire to abolish it instead of tolerating it.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I can speak of them with more authority than you can.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no doubt the hon. Member may be able to do so, but if he still holds to his opinion the only inference is that the Labour party never mean what they say. We wish we could find out whether, if they abolish the present House of Lords, they intend to establish another chamber in its place. Let me put this point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) tried to ascertain from the Leader of the Opposition. It is clear that under no circumstances will they tolerate a suspensory veto in the other Chamber—at least so long as a Government with a majority in this House keep faith with the electorate. How on earth can there be any security at all in a policy of that kind? As my hon. Friend opposite said, who is to be the judge?

Mr. LANSBURY: The electors.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Government of the day are to be the judges. We must all of us have read "Labour and the Nation." It was called by a Minister of the former Government a "dog's meal of scraps" or something of that kind—an infinite number of statements on many different subjects. Do they mean to say they would claim for any one of the subjects mentioned in "Labour and the Nation" that it had been before the electorate? When we come down to a practical consideration of this policy it is perfectly impossible to apply the test of the Leader of the Opposition in a way which would beget confidence in the electorate as a whole.
The truth is that we have the statement given that in no circumstances would the
Labour party have any chamber with a suspensory veto, even if they have a second chamber at all. It shows what the real attitude of the Labour party may be in the end with regard to this matter. We must regard them in that case as the most undemocratic party in the State. If one disregards phrases that may be sonorous and yet are deceptive, and gets down to the actual facts, it will be realised that there is always one inherent characteristic in a democracy which all will admit, and that is—it has been so from the earliest days of democracy—a liability to be temporarily carried away by some wave of sentiment or some gust of passion. Instance after instance occurs to the mind of everyone. The attitude of the country towards the recovery of the whole cost of the War at the time of the peace negotiations was one instance. The very Motion of want of confidence put down by the Opposition the other day was based upon the assumption that the present Government had obtained their majority from a temporary wave of feeling in the country. No one for a moment can deny the truth of what I have said.
What is the inevitable corollary from that? It is that if you want to have a true democracy, a democracy in which the sober judgment of the people and the truth may prevail, you must give the people an opportunity of second thoughts on some great subject. That is what the party opposite deliberately and purposely want to deny them. That is what is done by the abolition of any suspensory veto. It is clear from the speeches and writings of Members of the Labour party. The speech of the Solicitor-General in the late Government, made at Edinburgh earlier this year, contained the statement that the Labour party wished to abolish the House of Lords as soon as they had the opportunity. In an article written by one of their publicists, Professor Laski, in the "New Statesman," it was stated that they wish the House of Lords to be abolished because they do not wish to have anything which would interfere even for a short time—I am quoting his own words—with the passage of Socialistic legislation. But that is not necessarily the will of the people;
that is imposing your will on the people. That is not Democracy; it is Dictatorship.

Mr. LANSBURY: How can there possibly be a majority on that side of the House if that is not the will of the people?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I have said, and as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, a democracy is liable to sudden swings through gusts of passion and waves of sentiment.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is why the Government are there!

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I say again that to use a power of that kind simply to impose your will upon the people is not Democracy, but Dictatorship.

Mr. BERNAYS: How about tariffs?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am going to deal with the question of tariffs. It is dictatorship of the kind which is at present found in the only considerable country which has single-chamber Government, and that is Russia. There is just this difference, that Lenin, when he established the Russian Government, looked forward to a temporary period of dictatorship of some 10 or 20 years, after which the people were to be allowed to express their opinions. The present crisis there shows what may be the result when the chance of giving the people a second thought is abolished. That is what will be done away with in the future by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and a permanent dictatorship will be possible to the party in power. The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but I think he cannot recognise what the facts are at the present moment, and, at any rate, with any policy of that kind the beliefs of most Conservatives are in the most acute conflict.
We want, in the reform of the Second Chamber, to have a Second Chamber that should not be so one-sided, and a Government that should be based on the will of the people and the deliberate will of the people, whatever may be the party of the Government in power. That is why we want a reform both of the con stitution and of the powers of the Second Chamber. We do want to reform its constitution We think that at the
present moment it is in its actions more representative of public opinion than most of its opponents or its assailants are willing to admit in public, but, at the same time, public opinion is, quite naturally, sensitive to the fact that it is at the present moment very one-sided in its composition. The authority of any great public body depends largely upon what public opinion thinks of it, and we wish that that great one-sidedness should be redressed. On the other hand, we feel that there should be also a difference in the powers with which it is entrusted. I would ask Members of this House quite briefly to consider the amazingly unsatisfactory position in which the country is placed at the present time.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell) said, in his very interesting speech, that a second chamber which has the power to delay for two years is in possession of a very powerful authority, that there are few bad Bills which could survive a delay of two years, and that, therefore, we ought to be willing to rest content with that power which the present second Chamber possesses. If that were all, I think it might be so, but it is not possible to deal in detail with the other kind of legislation to-night, and I should be out of order in doing so. I should, however, like to support whole-heartedly what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise). Not all, but most of the far-reaching Measures dealing with subjects that are not primarily financial can yet be so drafted that they will be certifiable as money Bills, and, therefore, can be passed with a mere month's delay. I say that with every confidence, and I doubt if anyone who has gone into the question of the Parliament Act can deny for a moment that Measures which are not primarily financial in their purpose can be passed as Money Bills, the House of Lords having no power to delay them for more than a month. That is a wrong state of affairs from any democratic point of view, and I say at once to the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) that that applies just as much to a Tariff Bill as to any Measure dealing, shall we say, with the taxation of land values. It is a wrong state of government that should give no power of further consideration in the case of Measures of that kind.
I would make one more observation. If that is a dangerous state of affairs in itself, it is rendered infinitely more dangerous by the recent developments that have taken place in the procedure of this House also. Procedure by way of Orders in Council is not a novel device; what is new is the enormous development and wide extension of its use. Everyone who has been a responsible Member of this House knows perfectly well how great an effect can be exerted by acute and well-informed criticism of bad Measures produced by a Government, even when that criticism is applied by an Opposition which may constitute only a small minority of the House. They can expose faults, and very often secure either amendment or the rejection of such a Measure. Under the new extension and development of this procedure by way of Orders in Council, any Government, if they wish, can evade that criticism in this House, and the House itself can be made practically impotent as an effective forum of debate. As a bulwark against revolution, it may become a perfectly feeble safeguard. A rickety parapet at the edge of a precipice is worse than no parapet at all. Equally that should apply in support and reinforcement of the need there is for reforming the Second Chamber. I want to see a second chamber deal properly with the suspensory veto against legislation put forward by whatever party in this House, if it has reason to believe it is not wished for by the country as a matter of considered judgmen.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I interrupt for a moment? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question On what grounds do he and his friends argue that a new Chamber consisting of 320 members, never mind how elected, is better able to interpret the mind of the public than 615 Members of this House?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish all questions were as simple to answer as that. It is obvious that waves of sentiment, which may send an enormous majority back here, are passing and temporary in their nature, and that has been adumbrated by the hon. Member himself in his speech when he said he anticipated a majority in a comparatively short time. Consequently, when you have
a Second Chamber which has, an element which is either nominated, elected or hereditary, it means that it is not elected at the same time or subject to the same sentiments or the same waves of emotion which have sent back a majority to this House. That is the reason why I submit it is really time for the reform of the Second Chamber to be taken in hand.
Proposals have been out forward to which various hon. Members have alluded. They do not pretend to be the one and only specific or the only proper reforms. They are put forward as a contribution to the question. We believe they would constitute a very great advance on the present position, but, at the same time, we recognise quite well that there may be amendments or improvements to the scheme as put forward by us. Let it be made perfectly clear to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith), who said he did not wish to see a Second Chamber equal in authority to the first, that proposals such as we are advocating, if they did not give the Second Chamber equal authority to the first, would still give it some measure of power which would enable it to say to the country that they could pass judgment once again on a Measure to which it thought the country was opposed. It is for those reasons that we have put forward this Motion. We think such a reform is urgently needed. We do not pretend for a moment that it should take precedence of Measures vital to our immediate welfare in a time of depression like this, but we think it should be taken in hand as soon as those needs have been dealt with. We think a measure of reform of that kind would come in the ordered line of British constitutional development, and we think, at the same time, that it would serve the cause of true self government of the British people.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: There appears to me to be one thing outstanding in all the speeches that I have heard. The object of all those who ate seeking reform of the House of Lords is that the House of Lords which they have in their mind, whatever differences there may be among them, in regard to its make-up, shall be constituted in such a way as to prevent any Socialist legislation in the future. Their only difference is in detail. They differ
as to what kind of organisation would be the best to preserve to them and to their class those privileges to exploit the people generally that they possess to-day. Any attempt in the future, when the swing of the pendulum takes us back to a Socialist Government, is to be resisted by this newly constituted privileged body which has no representative opinion behind it at all. That, no doubt, will soak into the minds of the people outside and, when they make up their minds, as no doubt they will, when they have exhausted, as they will very soon, all the possibilities that there are in selecting a representative House, such as this House is, to carry out their will in such a way as will enable them to live in ordinary decency, and when that new House of Commons, constituted as it must be of a majority of Socialists, elected by a majority of the people to carry out a Socialist policy, that policy is to be prevented from operating by this newly constituted House of Lords which is in the mind of those who have spoken to-day. When we reach that stage, that the people themselves are determined to have those Socialist principles operated for their benefit and for their good, I am afraid they will not permit any type of House of Lords that you can either imagine or set up to stand in their way and prevent their will. At any rate, I hope to live long enough to see that opportunity arise for the people and I am prepared to leave it to that democracy to see that their will is carried out whether it is opposed by any House of Lords that you may be able to set up or not.

Mr. RAIKES: rose in his piece, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. MANDER: It seems to me that the House of Lords is much better left as it is. It is one of those excellent national institutions—

HON. MEMBERS: Vote !

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. MANDER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Vote!

Mr. RAIKES: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. MANDER: rose—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood Adjourned.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o' Clock.